[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <473CDC30.9050405@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:54:24 -0800
From: Mike Mason <mmlnx@...ibm.com>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 4/7] LTTng instrumentation kernel
snip
>
> +void list_modules(void *call_data)
> +{
> + /* Enumerate loaded modules */
> + struct list_head *i;
> + struct module *mod;
> + unsigned long refcount = 0;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&module_mutex);
> + list_for_each(i, &modules) {
> + mod = list_entry(i, struct module, list);
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MODULE_UNLOAD
> + refcount = local_read(&mod->ref[0].count);
> +#endif
> + __trace_mark(0, list_module, call_data,
> + "name %s state %d refcount %lu",
> + mod->name, mod->state, refcount);
> + }
> + mutex_unlock(&module_mutex);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(list_modules);
> +
> /* Given an address, look for it in the module exception tables. */
> const struct exception_table_entry *search_module_extables(unsigned long
> addr)
> {
What is the purpose of list_modules() in this patch? Seems outside the scope of the patches' intent. I assume LTTng uses it for some purpose, but it's not required to use the markers added by the patch.
Also, if list_modules() remains, the 0 should be removed from "__trace_mark(0, ..."
Mike Mason
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists