On Tue, 2016-03-29 at 15:34 -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: > Am Dienstag, 29 März 2016, 10:45:57 schrieb Michael Ellerman: > > On Mon, 2016-03-28 at 17:29 -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote: > > > If I do s/_do_fork/._do_fork/ in kprobe_ftrace.tc then all ftrace kprobe > > > tests pass: > > > > OK. We fixed that in 'perf probe', but not if you're using the sysfs file > > directly. > > > > Do you want to write a patch for ftracetest to try and handle it? I guess > > you'd try "_do_fork" and if that fails then try "._do_fork", and maybe > > only if uname -m says you're running on ppc64? > > I did write a patch yesterday (included below for reference), but then I > noticed that the other ftrace tests use _do_fork and they work fine (I guess > because of the fix you mentioned). I think that ideally the ftrace filter > mechanism should work with dot symbols as well as regular symbols. > > I think this could work by creating a mechanism analogous to the > ARCH_HAS_SYSCALL_MATCH_SYM_NAME one in trace_syscalls.c. Ftrace_match_record > could call it to adjust the symbol name (like kprobe_lookup_name) before > calling ftrace_match. > > But I’m wondering if it’s really worth the effort and maybe patching the > testcase is enough? Also, I don’t know whether my idea would have any > side effects.
It'd be nice if it worked properly. Reusing kprobe_lookup_name() looks like it would be the right fix, given this is "kprobe events". cheers _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
