[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080815124938.GB24663@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:49:38 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, nigel@...el.suspend2.net,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Kexec Mailing List <kexec@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v3 6/7] kexec jump: __ftrace_enabled_save/restore
* Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com> wrote:
> +/* Ftrace disable/restore without lock. Some synchronization mechanism
> + * must be used to prevent ftrace_enabled to be changed between
> + * disable/restore. */
use the proper comment style please:
/*
*
*/
> +static inline int __ftrace_enabled_save(void)
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_FTRACE
> + int saved_ftrace_enabled = ftrace_enabled;
> + ftrace_enabled = 0;
> + return saved_ftrace_enabled;
> +#else
> + return 0;
> +#endif
> +}
> +
> +static inline void __ftrace_enabled_restore(int enabled)
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_FTRACE
> + ftrace_enabled = enabled;
> +#endif
> +}
hm, what is this used for?
also, instead of such an ugly inline, why not create a proper
kernel/trace/* function for this. That would also give it access to all
the proper locking mechanisms - instead of relying on some extral
mechanism.
Ingo
--
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