>
> I think I found the issue, could you please check following patch?
>
I did some testing and it appears to work. Thanks! Please submit it.
Tested-by: Andi Kleen
-Andi
On 2017/10/12 23:59, Jiri Olsa wrote:
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:31:51PM +0800, Wangnan (F) wrote:
SNIP
Ok. If it works it's fine for me.
well it works, but it means that bpf file cannot contains any directory
part.. which im not sure is ok with bpf folks ;-) anyone?
Sorry I didn't see thi
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 11:31:51PM +0800, Wangnan (F) wrote:
SNIP
> > > > Ok. If it works it's fine for me.
> > well it works, but it means that bpf file cannot contains any directory
> > part.. which im not sure is ok with bpf folks ;-) anyone?
>
> Sorry I didn't see this thread these days.
>
On 2017/10/9 22:39, Jiri Olsa wrote:
On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 11:12:58AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
Em Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 07:07:29AM -0700, Andi Kleen escreveu:
On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 03:41:51PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 09:27:11AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 04:41:55PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 11:09:44AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
> > [root@jouet bpf]# cat sys_read.c
> > #define SEC(NAME) __attribute__((section(NAME), used))
> > SEC("func=sys_read")
> > int bpf_func__sys_read(vo
> > > > perf stat -e cpu/uops_executed.core/ ls
> > > > perf stat -e uops_executed.core ls
> > >
> > > Ok. If it works it's fine for me.
>
> well it works, but it means that bpf file cannot contains any directory
> part.. which im not sure is ok with bpf folks ;-) anyone?
One way that may wo
Em Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 04:39:53PM +0200, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 11:12:58AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Em Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 07:07:29AM -0700, Andi Kleen escreveu:
> > > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 03:41:51PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Oct 04, 2017
On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 07:07:29AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
SNIP
> >
> > > The only real fix would be probably to add some unique
> > > prefix for BPF, but that would break all existing users.
> >
> >
> > yea, there was no response from bpf folks, but it's probably not an optio
> >
> > how
On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 11:09:44AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
SNIP
> [root@jouet bpf]# cat sys_read.c
> #define SEC(NAME) __attribute__((section(NAME), used))
> SEC("func=sys_read")
> int bpf_func__sys_read(void *ctx)
> {
> return 1;
> }
> char _license[] SEC("license") = "GPL"
On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 11:12:58AM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 07:07:29AM -0700, Andi Kleen escreveu:
> > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 03:41:51PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 09:27:11AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at
Em Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 07:07:29AM -0700, Andi Kleen escreveu:
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 03:41:51PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 09:27:11AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 12:30:52PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 01:06:05PM -03
Em Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 03:41:51PM +0200, Jiri Olsa escreveu:
> On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 09:27:11AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 12:30:52PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > right, it looks like we allow whole path (including / char)
> > > for BPF file, which messes up with out p
On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 03:41:51PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 09:27:11AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 12:30:52PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 01:06:05PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > > Em Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:
On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 09:27:11AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 12:30:52PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 01:06:05PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > > Em Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:56:43PM -0700, Andi Kleen escreveu:
> > > > From: Andi Kleen
> > >
On Wed, Oct 04, 2017 at 12:30:52PM +0200, Jiri Olsa wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 01:06:05PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> > Em Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:56:43PM -0700, Andi Kleen escreveu:
> > > From: Andi Kleen
> > >
> > > There are still problems with BPF misinterpreting some event
On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 01:06:05PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:56:43PM -0700, Andi Kleen escreveu:
> > From: Andi Kleen
> >
> > There are still problems with BPF misinterpreting some events
> > that include .c. An earlier fix made it work for stand alone
>
Em Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 12:56:43PM -0700, Andi Kleen escreveu:
> From: Andi Kleen
>
> There are still problems with BPF misinterpreting some events
> that include .c. An earlier fix made it work for stand alone
> aliases, but it still fails for more complex constructs.
Hi Wang, Jiri,
Ca
From: Andi Kleen
There are still problems with BPF misinterpreting some events
that include .c. An earlier fix made it work for stand alone
aliases, but it still fails for more complex constructs.
REJECT keeps trying and trying a shorter string until
.c is matched and it appears like a valid BPF
18 matches
Mail list logo
