On Thu, 30 Oct 2025 05:25:48 -0400 Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2025 12:30:05 +0900 > "Masami Hiramatsu (Google)" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > kernel/trace/blktrace.c | 6 + > > kernel/trace/ftrace.c | 26 ++++++ > > kernel/trace/trace.c | 154 > > +++++++++++++++++----------------- > > kernel/trace/trace.h | 40 +++++---- > > kernel/trace/trace_events.c | 4 - > > kernel/trace/trace_events_synth.c | 2 > > kernel/trace/trace_fprobe.c | 6 + > > kernel/trace/trace_functions_graph.c | 18 ++-- > > kernel/trace/trace_irqsoff.c | 30 +++---- > > kernel/trace/trace_kdb.c | 2 > > kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c | 6 + > > kernel/trace/trace_output.c | 18 ++-- > > kernel/trace/trace_sched_wakeup.c | 24 +++-- > > kernel/trace/trace_syscalls.c | 4 - > > kernel/trace/trace_wprobe.c | 2 > > I didn't realize this affected your branch too. Which means I can't apply > this to any branch. Ah, I rebased it on the linux-trace/for-next, the auto merged branch. Let me rebase it on trace/for-next. > > Also, could you make a helper function... > > +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_wprobe.c > @@ -260,7 +260,7 @@ print_wprobe_event(struct trace_iterator *iter, int flags, > > trace_seq_printf(s, "%s: (", trace_probe_name(tp)); > > - if (!seq_print_ip_sym(s, field->ip, flags | TRACE_ITER_SYM_OFFSET)) > + if (!seq_print_ip_sym(s, field->ip, flags | TRACE_ITER(SYM_OFFSET))) > goto out; > > trace_seq_putc(s, ')'); > > that both fprobe and wprobe use? And then you don't need to have this open > coded everywhere. Yeah, OK. > > That is, add this patch: > > diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_probe.h b/kernel/trace/trace_probe.h > index 591adc9bb1e9..bd26004cc320 100644 > --- a/kernel/trace/trace_probe.h > +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_probe.h > @@ -598,3 +598,9 @@ struct uprobe_dispatch_data { > struct trace_uprobe *tu; > unsigned long bp_addr; > }; > + > +static inline int probe_print_ip_sym(struct trace_seq *s, unsigned long ip, > + int flags) > +{ > + retun seq_print_ip_sym(s, field->ip, flags | TRACE_ITER_SYM_OFFSET); > +} > > And use that instead. Shouldn't we make it trace-wide function ? > > So, new plan. Base this patch on top of v6.18-rc3 and send that. > OK. > Then what we can do is merge this branch into your branch and my branch and > add on top of it. > > Note, you should have rebased your probe branch on top of one of the > v6.18-rc releases. It's still based on top of 6.17-rc6, which can cause > other issues. OK. Thank you, > > > -- Steve -- Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <[email protected]>
