On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 09:57:46 -0400 Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 31 May 2024 23:20:47 +0900 > Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhira...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > The major conflict happens when the boot-time test cleans up the kprobe > > events by > > > > dyn_events_release_all(&trace_kprobe_ops); > > > > And I removed it by [3/3] patch in this series :) because it does not > > needed and not confirmed there is no other kprobe events when the test > > starts. Also the warning message are redundant so I removed it by [2/3]. > > > > So without this [1/3], if we apply [2/3] and [3/3], the problem will be > > mitigated, but I think the root cause is that these modules are built-in. > > I'm OK with making them module only, but I don't see any selftests for > sythetic events. I think they should have a boot up test as well. If we > remove them, let's add something to test them at boot up. Then the boot up > code could clean it up. > > Or change the test module to be a boot up test that cleans itself up if it > is compiled in as not a module? Yeah, I think we may need another test code for synthetic events, which also triggering the synthetic events. BTW, some these bootup tests can be ported on KUnit. Do you have a plan to use KUnit? Thank you, > > -- Steve > -- Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhira...@kernel.org>
