From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A330C4360C for ; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 17:54:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06497217D7 for ; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 17:54:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727517AbfI0RyQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Sep 2019 13:54:16 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:33640 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726294AbfI0RyQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Sep 2019 13:54:16 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098413.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x8RHs4Fo096683 for ; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 13:54:14 -0400 Received: from e06smtp03.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp03.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.99]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2v9n1a4hx6-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 13:54:14 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp03.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 18:54:12 +0100 Received: from b06avi18626390.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.26.192) by e06smtp03.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.133) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Fri, 27 Sep 2019 18:54:09 +0100 Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (mk.ibm.com [9.149.105.60]) by b06avi18626390.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x8RHrfog39977304 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 27 Sep 2019 17:53:41 GMT Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA58442045; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 17:54:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DF8F42041; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 17:54:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: from linux.vnet.ibm.com (unknown [9.102.3.25]) by d06av24.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with SMTP; Fri, 27 Sep 2019 17:54:06 +0000 (GMT) Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2019 23:24:05 +0530 From: Srikar Dronamraju To: Steven Rostedt Cc: LKML , Masami Hiramatsu , Naveen Rao , Ravi Bangoria Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing/probe: Test nr_args match in looking for same probe events Reply-To: Srikar Dronamraju References: <20190927055035.4c3abae9@oasis.local.home> <20190927131458.GA19008@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20190927105019.661591cd@oasis.local.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190927105019.661591cd@oasis.local.home> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19092717-0012-0000-0000-00000351631B X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19092717-0013-0000-0000-0000218BFF88 Message-Id: <20190927175405.GA7088@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-09-27_08:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=839 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1908290000 definitions=main-1909270149 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > > > This has a side-effect where the newer probe has same argument commands, we > > still end up appending the probe. > > ?? > > How so? > > If the two have the same number of arguments we do exactly what we did > before this patch. Please explain to me how that side effect would happen? > > It basically is doing, "if the two probes do not have the same number > of arguments, don't bother comparing, because they are different." > Lets take the first probe has 3 arguments passed to it and the second probe has just 2 arguments. If the first two arguments are same type, name, and comm, should we append to the first probe? I think No, I would believe we should append only if the comm of either of the arguments was different. Example: echo p:test _do_fork arg1=%ax arg2=%bx arg3=%cx >> kprobe_events echo p:test _do_fork arg1=%ax arg2=%bx >> kprobe_events