On Thu, 7 May 2026 10:09:09 +0200 Martin Kaiser <[email protected]> wrote:
> The function name should be __register_tracepoint_fprobe. > This looks good to me. Let me pick it. Thanks, > Signed-off-by: Martin Kaiser <[email protected]> > --- > kernel/trace/trace_fprobe.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_fprobe.c b/kernel/trace/trace_fprobe.c > index 9f5f08c0e7c2..4d1abbf66229 100644 > --- a/kernel/trace/trace_fprobe.c > +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_fprobe.c > @@ -764,7 +764,7 @@ static int unregister_fprobe_event(struct trace_fprobe > *tf) > return trace_probe_unregister_event_call(&tf->tp); > } > > -static int __regsiter_tracepoint_fprobe(struct trace_fprobe *tf) > +static int __register_tracepoint_fprobe(struct trace_fprobe *tf) > { > struct tracepoint_user *tuser __free(tuser_put) = NULL; > struct module *mod __free(module_put) = NULL; > @@ -836,7 +836,7 @@ static int __register_trace_fprobe(struct trace_fprobe > *tf) > tf->fp.flags &= ~FPROBE_FL_DISABLED; > > if (trace_fprobe_is_tracepoint(tf)) > - return __regsiter_tracepoint_fprobe(tf); > + return __register_tracepoint_fprobe(tf); > > /* TODO: handle filter, nofilter or symbol list */ > return register_fprobe(&tf->fp, tf->symbol, NULL); > -- > 2.43.7 > -- Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <[email protected]>
