On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 18:38:36 -0700 Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> actually just noticed that xdp tracepoints are not covered by ifdef. > They depend on bpf_syscall too. So probably makes sense to wrap > them together. > bpf tracepoints are not being actively worked on whereas xdp tracepoints > keep evolving quickly, so the best is probalby to go via net-next > if you don't mind. Hmm, they didn't trigger a warning, with the exception of trace_xdp_redirect_map. I have code to check if tracepoints are used or not, and it appears that the xdp can be used without BPF_SYSCALL. I don't think they should be wrapped together until we know why they are used. I can still take this patch and just not touch the xdp ones. Note, my kernel was using trace_xdp_redirect_map_err, trace_xdp_redirect_err, trace_xdp_redirect and trace_xdp_exception. As they did appear. -- Steve
