This is the mail archive of the
systemtap@sourceware.org
mailing list for the systemtap project.
Re: Initial stap support for inode-based uprobes
- From: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- To: David Smith <dsmith at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Josh Stone <jistone at redhat dot com>, systemtap at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 11:07:03 +0530
- Subject: Re: Initial stap support for inode-based uprobes
- References: <4DD5DEAA.3050908@redhat.com> <4EC3F556.4010902@redhat.com> <4ED5546F.2070202@redhat.com>
- Reply-to: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
> >
> > 1) stock f16 kernel and HEAD systemtap
> >
> > # of expected passes 3096
> > # of unexpected failures 63
> > # of unexpected successes 8
> > # of expected failures 259
> > # of untested testcases 61
> > # of unsupported tests 4
> >
> > 2) f16 kernel with the new inode-based uprobes built-in and systemtap
> > with a merged dsmith/task_finder2 and jistone/inode-uprobes branches
> >
> > # of expected passes 2638
> > # of unexpected failures 329
> > # of unexpected successes 9
> > # of expected failures 251
> > # of untested testcases 70
> > # of unsupported tests 4
> >
> > That isn't too bad for a first stab. Here's the link to the diff in
> > dejazilla:
> >
> > <http://web.elastic.org/~dejazilla/viewrgdiff.php?rg1=402882&rg2=891228&_offset=0&_limit=40&_offset=0&testcase=&r1=&r2=>
>
>
> I've looked into this a bit, and the lack of uprobes return probes
> causes a good number of failures. I've just checked in a change to
> uprobes.exp, so that it tests .call and .return probes individually (as
> well as together). The inode-based uprobes code passes the .call probe
> test.
Nice.
Thanks for the confirmation.
--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar