From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754087AbdLHPfw (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Dec 2017 10:35:52 -0500 Received: from www62.your-server.de ([213.133.104.62]:58361 "EHLO www62.your-server.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753786AbdLHPfv (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Dec 2017 10:35:51 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 0/5] Add the ability to do BPF directed error injection To: Josef Bacik , rostedt@goodmis.org, mingo@redhat.com, davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ast@kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org References: <1512576737-9417-1-git-send-email-josef@toxicpanda.com> From: Daniel Borkmann Message-ID: <439bccca-53e8-408e-972c-7f1b25ba0da6@iogearbox.net> Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 16:35:44 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1512576737-9417-1-git-send-email-josef@toxicpanda.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated-Sender: daniel@iogearbox.net Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 12/06/2017 05:12 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: > Jon noticed that I had a typo in my _ASM_KPROBE_ERROR_INJECT macro. I went to > figure out why the compiler didn't catch it and it's because it was not used > anywhere. I had copied it from the trace blacklist code without understanding > where it was used as cscope didn't find the original macro I was looking for, so > I assumed it was some voodoo and left it in place. Turns out cscope failed me > and I didn't need the macro at all, the trace blacklist thing I was looking at > was for marking assembly functions as blacklisted and I have no intention of > marking assembly functions as error injectable at the moment. > > v7->v8: > - removed the _ASM_KPROBE_ERROR_INJECT since it was not needed. The series doesn't apply cleanly to the bpf-next tree, so one last respin with a rebase would unfortunately still be required, thanks!