From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751862AbbJCGhV (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Oct 2015 02:37:21 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f169.google.com ([209.85.212.169]:36607 "EHLO mail-wi0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751646AbbJCGhT (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Oct 2015 02:37:19 -0400 Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 08:37:15 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Daniel Borkmann Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alexei Starovoitov , Steven Rostedt Subject: Re: [PATCH] ebpf, events: make it actually more configurable Message-ID: <20151003063715.GA22713@gmail.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Daniel Borkmann wrote: > While testing some other BPF issue, I realized that BPF_EVENTS is > actually not accessible through menuconfig because of a missing > description that needs to be attached to the bool. After the patch > the entry shows up in menuconfig and can be enabled/disabled from > there. Yeah, so the principle is the following: the main configuration option for it is BPF_SYSCALL. The BPF_EVENTS is an internal detail, always enabled when possible, and we make it so that if the BPF syscall is enabled, we'll enable the perf integration if all the must-have components are in place: > depends on KPROBE_EVENT || UPROBE_EVENT > default y So this is intentional. Unless your suggestion is to also enable it when neither KPROBE_EVENT nor UPROBE_EVENT are defined. Does that make sense? Thanks, Ingo