Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68549C636D6 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2023 22:03:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232196AbjBHWDL (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Feb 2023 17:03:11 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:37206 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232079AbjBHWDJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Feb 2023 17:03:09 -0500 Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org (dfw.source.kernel.org [IPv6:2604:1380:4641:c500::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A238F18157; Wed, 8 Feb 2023 14:03:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A3F2617EE; Wed, 8 Feb 2023 22:03:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DF4C5C433EF; Wed, 8 Feb 2023 22:03:06 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2023 17:03:04 -0500 From: Steven Rostedt To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: LKML , Linux Trace Kernel , Masami Hiramatsu , Shuah Khan , Shuah Khan Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing/selftests: Ignore __pfx_ symbols in kprobe test Message-ID: <20230208170304.388c1786@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: References: <20230207135147.5ce618d6@gandalf.local.home> <20230207135402.38f73bb6@gandalf.local.home> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.8 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 19:05:08 +0100 Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > This is assuming that kprobes can not be added on top of these. But another > > solution could be to have kprobes just pick the function the __pfx_ is for. > > Would that be a better solution? > > Simply refusing them is simplest. I don't see a compelling reason to > make this complicated. OK, so you are good with the patch as is then? -- Steve