Message ID | 20200224145642.953923067@linutronix.de |
---|---|
State | Accepted |
Delegated to: | BPF Maintainers |
Headers | show |
Series | None | expand |
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 03:01:36PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > All callers are built in. No point to export this. > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> > --- > V3: New patch > --- > kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 1 - > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > > --- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c > +++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c > @@ -119,7 +119,6 @@ unsigned int trace_call_bpf(struct trace > > return ret; > } > -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(trace_call_bpf); Thanks for catching this. Looking at my old commit 2541517c32be ("tracing, perf: Implement BPF programs attached to kprobes") where I added this line I cannot figure out why I did so five years ago. I'm guessing some earlier versions of the patches were calling it from tracepoint macro and since tracepoints can be in modules I exported it. Definitely shouldn't be an export symbol.
--- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c +++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c @@ -119,7 +119,6 @@ unsigned int trace_call_bpf(struct trace return ret; } -EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(trace_call_bpf); #ifdef CONFIG_BPF_KPROBE_OVERRIDE BPF_CALL_2(bpf_override_return, struct pt_regs *, regs, unsigned long, rc)
All callers are built in. No point to export this. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> --- V3: New patch --- kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)