From f956063b15f639b61f85a7a1e70c3a01661e5c09 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 11:53:01 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] tutorial: fix poor wording in an exercise question Reported-By: storypku at stackoverflow --- doc/tutorial.tex | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/tutorial.tex b/doc/tutorial.tex index 7b4fde505..eefbc0502 100644 --- a/doc/tutorial.tex +++ b/doc/tutorial.tex @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -% Copyright (C) 2005-2010 Red Hat Inc. +% Copyright (C) 2005-2013 Red Hat Inc. % This file is part of systemtap, and is free software. You can % redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General % Public License (GPL); either version 2, or (at your option) any @@ -322,7 +322,7 @@ probe kernel.function("*@net/socket.c").return { return now don't match anymore. This is because now the first probe will match both normal function entry and inlined functions. Try putting the \verb+.call+ modifier back and add another probe just for - \verb+probe kernel.function("*@net/socket.c").return+ + \verb+probe kernel.function("*@net/socket.c").inline+ What \verb+printf+ statement can you come up with in the probe handler to show the inlined function entries nicely in between the \verb+.call+ and \verb+.return+ thread indented output? -- 2.43.5