# Re: \[PATCH bpf-next\] bpf, tracing: unbreak lttng

- From: Mathieu Desnoyers \<mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com\>
- Date: 2018-03-26 22:30:09 
- List: netdev
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2018/03/11086370
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2018/03/11086365/t.md

```text
----- On Mar 26, 2018, at 6:08 PM, Alexei Starovoitov ast@kernel.org wrote:
[...]
> 
> #ifdef CONFIG_TRACEPOINTS
> -void *
> -for_each_kernel_tracepoint(void *(*fct)(struct tracepoint *tp, void *priv),
> +void
> +for_each_kernel_tracepoint(void (*fct)(struct tracepoint *tp, void *priv),
> 			   void *priv);
> +struct tracepoint *kernel_tracepoint_find_by_name(const char *name);
> #else
> -static inline void *
> -for_each_kernel_tracepoint(void *(*fct)(struct tracepoint *tp, void *priv),
> +static inline void
> +for_each_kernel_tracepoint(void (*fct)(struct tracepoint *tp, void *priv),
> 			   void *priv)
> {
> 	return NULL;
> }

This patch is not reverting to the old code properly. It introduces a
static inline void function that returns NULL. Please compile-test
with CONFIG_TRACEPOINTS=n before submitting a patch involving tracepoints.

But this patch should not even be needed in the first place, because it
partially reverts changes that were introduced in the bpf-next tree without
any Acked-by from the tracing maintainers. I don't see any need to obfuscate
the git log of tracepoint.{c,h}.

Thanks,

Mathieu

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
```