On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 9:00 PM Andrii Nakryiko
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 5:52 PM Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 09:40:48 +0900
> > Masami Hiramatsu (Google) wrote:
> >
> > > OK, for me, this last sentence is preferred for the help message. That
> > > explains
> > >
On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 5:52 PM Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 09:40:48 +0900
> Masami Hiramatsu (Google) wrote:
>
> > OK, for me, this last sentence is preferred for the help message. That
> > explains
> > what this is for.
> >
> > All callbacks that attach to the function
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 09:40:48 +0900
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) wrote:
> OK, for me, this last sentence is preferred for the help message. That
> explains
> what this is for.
>
> All callbacks that attach to the function tracing have some sort
> of protection against recursion.
On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 22:47:33 -0400
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 19:29:46 -0700
> Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 5:38 PM Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 12:09:18 -0400
> > > Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, 1 Apr 2024
On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 12:16 PM Kui-Feng Lee wrote:
>
> rethook_find_ret_addr() prints a warning message and returns 0 when the
> target task is running and not the "current" task to prevent returning an
> incorrect return address. However, this check is incomplete as the target
> task can still
