Re: Question about config UPROBES and UPROBE_EVENTS

[Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn>]

On 9/30/24 23:43, Masami Hiramatsu (Google) wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 11:32:31 -0400
> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 1 Oct 2024 00:28:13 +0900
>> Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 10:06:30 -0400
>>> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 09:33:42 +0800
>>>> Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn> wrote:
>>>>    
>>>>>> the CONFIG_UPROBES is disabled by default and make CONFIG_UPROBE_EVENTS
>>>>>> depending on it, the uprobe_events menu is hidden. I don't like this.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is somehow like the current status of CONFIG_KPROBES and
>>>>> CONFIG_KPROBE_EVENTS.
>>>>
>>>> The question is, can uprobes be used without uprobe_events? With the
>>>> current BPF work that I haven't been following, it may be possible now.
>>>
>>> uprobe_register/unregister APIs are exposed to the kernel modules,
>>> since systemtap had been introduced this feature.
>>>
>>
>> OK, but since they have always been visible, I would just make
>> CONFIG_UPROBES a normal option and CONFIG_UPROBE_EVENTS select it if it
>> gets selected, and not depend on it.
> 
> Agreed.

Thanks very much for your discussions. I agree with you.

Then, CONFIG_KPROBE_EVENTS should depend on or select CONFIG_KPROBES?
In the current code, CONFIG_KPROBE_EVENTS depend on CONFIG_KPROBES,
the CONFIG_KPROBE_EVENTS menu is hidden if CONFIG_KPROBES is not set.

Thanks,
Tiezhu