On Fri, 16 Jan 2026 14:24:51 -0800 Andrii Nakryiko <[email protected]> wrote:
> I don't insist, but I'm just saying that practically speaking this > would make sense. Even conceptually, kretprobe is (logically) called > from traced function right before exit. In reality it's not exactly > like that and we don't know where ret happened, but having traced > function in kretprobe's stack trace is more useful than confusing, > IMO. It's more useful than confusing for you because you understand it. For anyone else, it will be very confusing, or worse, miscalculated, to see the backtrace coming from the start of the function when the function has already executed. Sure, having the function is very useful, but the function is already completed. Technically it shouldn't be in the stacktrace. Having the return address in the trace should point out that the stacktrace came from the function right before that address. -- Steve
