On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 6:04 AM Masami Hiramatsu <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 17:21:38 -0700 > Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]> wrote: > > > -static int __uprobe_register(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, > > - loff_t ref_ctr_offset, struct uprobe_consumer > > *uc) > > +int uprobe_register_batch(struct inode *inode, int cnt, > > + uprobe_consumer_fn get_uprobe_consumer, void *ctx) > > Is this interface just for avoiding memory allocation? Can't we just > allocate a temporary array of *uprobe_consumer instead?
Yes, exactly, to avoid the need for allocating another array that would just contain pointers to uprobe_consumer. Consumers would never just have an array of `struct uprobe_consumer *`, because uprobe_consumer struct is embedded in some other struct, so the array interface isn't the most convenient. If you feel strongly, I can do an array, but this necessitates allocating an extra array *and keeping it* for the entire duration of BPF multi-uprobe link (attachment) existence, so it feels like a waste. This is because we don't want to do anything that can fail in the detachment logic (so no temporary array allocation there). Anyways, let me know how you feel about keeping this callback. > > Thank you, > > -- > Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <[email protected]>
