Re: [GIT PULL] tracing: Updates for 5.16

From: Masami Hiramatsu
Date: Tue Nov 02 2021 - 13:41:55 EST


On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 09:17:22 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 20:08:30 -0700
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 2:55 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Also, this pull request will conflict with your tree against a fix I had
> > > for trace recursions. I did the conflict resolution and pushed it to my
> > > ftrace/conflicts branch if you want to reference it.
> >
> > In the meantime, my tree had grown a few more conflicts elsewhere, but
> > it all looked fairly straightforward.
> >
> > It might be a good idea if you were to double-check that everything
> > looks good, though.
> >
>
> I performed the merge and conflict resolution to the same commit you used,
> and came up with pretty much the same (sans whitespace differences).
>
> The only thing I would like to bring attention to is the wording for the
> comment to kprobe_flush_task() that both Thomas and Masami updated, and I
> want to make sure they are both happy with the final result:
>
> Thomas, Masami ?
>
> /*
> * This function is called from delayed_put_task_struct() when a task is
> * dead and cleaned up to recycle any kretprobe instances associated with
> * this task. These left over instances represent probed functions that
> * have been called but will never return.
> */
> void kprobe_flush_task(struct task_struct *tk)
>
> You OK with the above wording?

Yes, this looks good to me :-)
Thank you for merging nicely!

--
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@xxxxxxxxxx>