From: Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Sven Schnelle <svens@linux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests/ftrace: Let fprobe test consider already enabled functions
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 16:28:35 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250226152835.23133Bd0-hca@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250226235447.7fab8051b2968277ce6920db@kernel.org>
On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 11:54:47PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 15:27:03 +0100
> Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > The fprobe test fails on Fedora 41 since the fprobe test assumption that
> > the number of enabled_functions is zero before the test starts is not
> > necessarily true. Some user space tools, like systemd, add BPF programs
> > that attach to functions. Those will show up in the enabled_functions table
> > and must be taken into account by the fprobe test.
>
> Hmm, this ftrace selftests has been expected to be run without
> any BPF programs... Is there any other issue on other test cases?
At least on s390 all tests pass now.
That is of course except for the "add/remove/test uprobe events" test
where I sent a patch. Not sure what will happen with that one:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250220130102.2079179-1-hca@linux.ibm.com/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-02-26 15:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-02-26 14:27 [PATCH] selftests/ftrace: Let fprobe test consider already enabled functions Heiko Carstens
2025-02-26 14:54 ` Masami Hiramatsu
2025-02-26 15:28 ` Heiko Carstens [this message]
2025-02-26 16:18 ` Steven Rostedt
2025-02-26 16:13 ` Steven Rostedt
2025-02-26 23:51 ` Masami Hiramatsu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20250226152835.23133Bd0-hca@linux.ibm.com \
--to=hca@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=agordeev@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com \
--cc=mhiramat@kernel.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=svens@linux.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.