Hi Oleg,
On 09/09/2013 08:25 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 09/09, Anton Arapov wrote:
On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 06:32:32PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
Not sure, but I can be easily wrong... afaics we need something like below, no?
Anton?
Oleg, your guess is correct.
My original intention was to
On 09/09, Anton Arapov wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 06:32:32PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Not sure, but I can be easily wrong... afaics we need something like below,
> > no?
> > Anton?
>
> Oleg, your guess is correct.
>
> My original intention was to limit by depth the chained only
On Sun, Sep 08, 2013 at 06:32:32PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Sorry for delay, vacation.
>
> On 09/03, Hemant Kumar Shaw wrote:
> >
> > There exists a limit to the number of nested return probes. The current
> > limit is 64.
> > However this limit is getting enforced on even non nested return
Sorry for delay, vacation.
On 09/03, Hemant Kumar Shaw wrote:
>
> There exists a limit to the number of nested return probes. The current limit
> is 64.
> However this limit is getting enforced on even non nested return probes.
> Hence, registering 64 independent non nested return probes results
Here is a sample program which shows a problem in uretprobes:
#include
int some_work(int num)
{
while (num != 0)
num--;
return 0;
};
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
if (argc != 2)
return EXIT_FAILURE;
int num = atoi(argv[1]);
5 matches
Mail list logo