Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 2 Aug 2022 16:01:30 +0200
From:   Artem Savkov <asavkov@redhat.com>
To:     Jiri Olsa <olsajiri@gmail.com>
Cc:     Alexei Starovoitov <ast@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org>, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Daniel Vacek <dvacek@redhat.com>, Song Liu <song@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Xu <dxu@dxuuu.xyz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 2/3] bpf: export crash_kexec() as destructive
 kfunc
Message-ID: <YukuOj4CR3HgUv1S@sparkplug.usersys.redhat.com>
References: <20220802091030.3742334-1-asavkov@redhat.com>
 <20220802091030.3742334-3-asavkov@redhat.com>
 <YukAkjqdAqr9x2Bs@krava>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <YukAkjqdAqr9x2Bs@krava>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 12:46:42PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 02, 2022 at 11:10:29AM +0200, Artem Savkov wrote:
> > +static int __init crash_kfunc_init(void)
> > +{
> > +	register_btf_kfunc_id_set(BPF_PROG_TYPE_TRACING, &kexec_kfunc_set);
> > +	return 0;
> 
> should we do 'return register_btf_kfunc_id_set(...' in here?

Maybe, but as far as I can tell the return value for init calls does
absolutely nothing except for showing up in a debug message. So I don't
think it will be worth a respin, but if there is one anyway I'll change
this.

-- 
 Artem