On Sun, 7 Jan 2018 19:01:57 -0800
Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On 12/29/17 12:20 AM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> >> Please run Josef's test in the !ftrace setup.
> > Yes, I'll add the result of the test case.
>
> if Josef's test is passing in !ftrace config,
> please resend your
On 12/29/17 12:20 AM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
Please run Josef's test in the !ftrace setup.
Yes, I'll add the result of the test case.
if Josef's test is passing in !ftrace config,
please resend your patches.
I think 2 and 3 were nice simplifications.
and patch 1 is good too if it's passes
On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 17:03:24 -0800
Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On 12/28/17 12:20 AM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 20:32:07 -0800
> > Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> >
> >> On 12/27/17 8:16 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 19:45:42
On 12/28/17 12:20 AM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 20:32:07 -0800
Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On 12/27/17 8:16 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 19:45:42 -0800
Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
I don't think that's the case. My reading of current
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 20:32:07 -0800
Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On 12/27/17 8:16 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 19:45:42 -0800
> > Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> >
> >> I don't think that's the case. My reading of current
> >> trace_kprobe_ftrace() ->
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 19:45:42 -0800
Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On 12/27/17 6:34 PM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 14:46:24 -0800
> > Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> >
> >> On 12/26/17 9:56 PM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 26 Dec 2017 17:57:32
On 12/27/17 8:16 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 19:45:42 -0800
Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
I don't think that's the case. My reading of current
trace_kprobe_ftrace() -> arch_check_ftrace_location()
is that it will not be true for old mcount case.
In the old mcount
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 19:45:42 -0800
Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> I don't think that's the case. My reading of current
> trace_kprobe_ftrace() -> arch_check_ftrace_location()
> is that it will not be true for old mcount case.
In the old mcount case, you can't use ftrace to return
On 12/27/17 6:34 PM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 14:46:24 -0800
Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On 12/26/17 9:56 PM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
On Tue, 26 Dec 2017 17:57:32 -0800
Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 04:46:59PM
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 14:46:24 -0800
Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On 12/26/17 9:56 PM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Dec 2017 17:57:32 -0800
> > Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 04:46:59PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
On 12/26/17 9:56 PM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
On Tue, 26 Dec 2017 17:57:32 -0800
Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 04:46:59PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
Check whether error injectable event is on function entry or not.
Currently it checks the
On Tue, 26 Dec 2017 17:57:32 -0800
Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 04:46:59PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > Check whether error injectable event is on function entry or not.
> > Currently it checks the event is ftrace-based kprobes or not,
>
On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 04:46:59PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> Check whether error injectable event is on function entry or not.
> Currently it checks the event is ftrace-based kprobes or not,
> but that is wrong. It should check if the event is on the entry
> of target function. Since error
Check whether error injectable event is on function entry or not.
Currently it checks the event is ftrace-based kprobes or not,
but that is wrong. It should check if the event is on the entry
of target function. Since error injection will override a function
to just return with modified return
14 matches
Mail list logo