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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox