On Sat, 22 Aug 2026 09:35:02 +0000 [email protected] wrote: > Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) > to consider: > - [Low] The test comment `# BAD_ACCESS_ADDR` does not match the actual error > logged by the kernel, which is `BAD_PROBE_ADDR`. > -- > > --- Patch [8]: [PATCH v13 08/12] selftests: tracing: Add syntax testcase for > wprobe --- > commit fc72e33e91d484bd38ebdde9110dabef02740205 > Author: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <[email protected]> > > selftests: tracing: Add syntax testcase for wprobe > > This commit adds a new testcase, wprobe_syntax_errors.tc, to verify the > syntax error handling of watch probe events. > > > diff --git > > a/tools/testing/selftests/ftrace/test.d/dynevent/wprobes_syntax_errors.tc > > b/tools/testing/selftests/ftrace/test.d/dynevent/wprobes_syntax_errors.tc > > new file mode 100644 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ > > b/tools/testing/selftests/ftrace/test.d/dynevent/wprobes_syntax_errors.tc > [ ... ] > > +check_error '^w' # NO_ARG_BODY > > +check_error 'w^10 w@jiffies' # WPROBE_NO_MAXACT > > +check_error 'w ^symbol' # BAD_ACCESS_FMT > > +check_error 'w ^a@symbol' # BAD_ACCESS_TYPE > > +check_error 'w w@^symbol' # BAD_ACCESS_ADDR > > +check_error 'w w@jiffies^+offset' # BAD_ACCESS_ADDR > > [Severity: Low] > This isn't a bug, but should this comment say BAD_PROBE_ADDR instead of > BAD_ACCESS_ADDR?
Ah, good catch! ;) Thanks! -- Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <[email protected]>
