[PATCH 0/2] powerpc: kretprobe updates
Naveen N. Rao
naveen.n.rao at linux.vnet.ibm.com
Mon Feb 20 20:50:24 AEDT 2017
On 2017/02/19 01:42PM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 17:42:54 -0300
> Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme at kernel.org> wrote:
> > Em Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 07:44:33PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu escreveu:
> > > On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:47:37 +0530
> > > "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am posting the powerpc bits in the same thread so as to keep these
> > > > changes together. I am not sure how this should be taken upstream as
> > > > there are atleast three different trees involved: one for the core
> > > > kprobes infrastructure, one for powerpc and one for perf.
> > > Hmm, could you make these (and other related) patches and
> > > other series in one series? Or wait for the other series
> > > are merged correctly.
> > Well, patches like these should be done in a way that the tooling parts
> > can deal with kernels with or without the kernel changes, so that older
> > tools work with new kernels and new tools work with older kernels.
> > "work" as in the previous behaviour is kept when a new tool deals with
> > an older kernel and an older tool would warn the user that what it needs
> > is not present in that kernel.
> > Is this the case? I just looked briefly at the patch commit logs.
> Thanks Arnaldo,
> Naveen, I think this one and your previous series are incompatible
> with older kernel. So those should be merged in one series and
> at least (1) update ftrace's README special file to show explicitly
> which can accept text+offset style for kretprobes, and
Sure - do you mean Documentation/trace/kprobetrace.txt? And, do you want
me to include kernel version where this changed?
> (2) update
> perf probe side to ensure that (and fallback to previous logic if not).
Sure. I am trying out an approach and will post it as soon as it's
More information about the Linuxppc-dev