On 06/05, Jiri Olsa wrote: > > > And the comment about the return value looks confusing too. I mean, the > > logic doesn't differ from the ret-code from ->handler(). > > > > "DO NOT install/execute the return uprobe" is not true if another > > non-session-consumer returns 0. > > well they are meant to be exclusive, so there'd be no other > non-session-consumer
OK. (but may be the changelog can explain more clearly why they can't co-exist with the non-session-consumers). But again, this doesn't differ from the the ret-code from the non-session-consumer->handler(). If it returns 1 == UPROBE_HANDLER_REMOVE, then without other consumers prepare_uretprobe() won't be called. Oleg.
