Date:   Thu, 9 Feb 2023 11:45:43 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc:     LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Trace Kernel <linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing/selftests: Ignore __pfx_ symbols in kprobe test
Message-ID: <Y+TO1+k58kj2Z29t@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20230207135147.5ce618d6@gandalf.local.home>
 <20230207135402.38f73bb6@gandalf.local.home>
 <Y+PkVD1+myADYns+@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20230208170304.388c1786@gandalf.local.home>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230208170304.388c1786@gandalf.local.home>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 05:03:04PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2023 19:05:08 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> 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?

Yeah, but given I've no idea about the whole test thing or .tc files I
didn't ack.