From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC5CC3AB5DE; Tue, 7 Jul 2026 07:00:40 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783407641; cv=none; b=T7gg2ZiSdDLkBBed6z0i8IQpNSYfGGrTcdNYTbcgrOb1WlRt7UYS12PhhnwxA1IGmp0lFGPy5SvLh45VASz1MPep02RuXST5TAcCNGTAGSfGmexvqVoRwgMZquM2IpbRedyrC98NKwLMPId64O9d7DoPHWHa1yVv1kZaFgMACec= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1783407641; c=relaxed/simple; bh=4DhjN/AGvRqCsrEvXLTTiEEADLAHfEENZNm++ejemRM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=lU9b7nBXvu9DGJe+tY3yWyKj1Tw9+C0UmbP5xXKz+BxNwgc53ZSvChq256CJDAga/wXw0vzWzvY8MkquXX2Fm2v88hRP+ObTVIjFR5awnzjSlWgaeIRm/+k0X+En3336zzFgb5O4HOpobzZY+qCjBhPVlCOuk1Wrvv1RxNj9N9M= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=rGSuBxMY; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=8ZoVqbGr; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="rGSuBxMY"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="8ZoVqbGr" From: Nam Cao DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1783407639; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=4DhjN/AGvRqCsrEvXLTTiEEADLAHfEENZNm++ejemRM=; b=rGSuBxMY4IhB0shz7eD+LYxu/Sk0GVDvkOZHn2eya8ADaecHGMMuXDkteBi5y6Jjm7QSg1 ptrAmeGxeNby7TIaFEZ8jFc7Nnv0Z2F6v0xKLMf96mMtVoPoV9FetjzhceeBJ9Fhe95v+a /InA0IxQap4nK1NtgHMNTf42dq5FHGJgBGiLtZo9fN/dIQnLwcklBqq1bxb9M4nWj9ZbVL pd9aB0nhsFEmIwcHH+dMNOe+rVQeKeia3GR89DSk4KmI07j9UfJ9b6VKGQVPp3kWRagOEU YEY3vfXfywJuxPXKQikIM65/l0jALO9shqJdUxTJ14bEmpaEIaD7mN5Fl5ZwEw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1783407639; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=4DhjN/AGvRqCsrEvXLTTiEEADLAHfEENZNm++ejemRM=; b=8ZoVqbGrpoc+j1+fClWAnAoDUDv+jeXlx/qoesyHPRxmlSEI5Zch/F4OjFli+bdZmKptzc coAnRddYIwLD7RCw== To: Gabriele Monaco , linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt , Gabriele Monaco , Masami Hiramatsu Cc: Thomas Weissschuh , Tomas Glozar , John Kacur , Wen Yang Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 11/17] rv: Prevent unintentional tracepoints during KUnit tests In-Reply-To: <20260625121440.116317-12-gmonaco@redhat.com> References: <20260625121440.116317-1-gmonaco@redhat.com> <20260625121440.116317-12-gmonaco@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2026 09:00:38 +0200 Message-ID: <878q7n2six.fsf@yellow.woof> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Gabriele Monaco writes: > Monitor initialisation also called during KUnit tests may register some > tracepoints, this can lead to issues since we don't expect real monitor > events running during KUnit tests. > > Prevent tracepoint registration if an RV KUnit test is running. > > Reviewed-by: Nam Cao > Signed-off-by: Gabriele Monaco Somehow I have no recollection of seeing this patch. But since we already hold rv_interface_lock during the test, is this really necessary? Nam