Re: [RFC bpf-next 01/10] uprobe: Add session callbacks to uprobe_consumer

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 06/05, Jiri Olsa wrote:
>
> > And the comment about the return value looks confusing too. I mean, the
> > logic doesn't differ from the ret-code from ->handler().
> >
> > "DO NOT install/execute the return uprobe" is not true if another
> > non-session-consumer returns 0.
>
> well they are meant to be exclusive, so there'd be no other non-session-consumer

OK. (but may be the changelog can explain more clearly why they can't
co-exist with the non-session-consumers).

But again, this doesn't differ from the the ret-code from the
non-session-consumer->handler().

If it returns 1 == UPROBE_HANDLER_REMOVE, then without other consumers
prepare_uretprobe() won't be called.

Oleg.