[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0811130848450.7458@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:54:58 -0500 (EST)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Pekka Paalanen <pq@....fi>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] ftrace: do not update max buffer with no users
On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> the obvious solution is to add this to ring_buffer_resize():
>
> if (!buffer)
> return size;
Having a NULL buffer return a successful resize is a bit worrisome to me.
And looking at the code I was trying to make sure could never be called
if there are no max_tr users:
in update_max_tr
buf = tr->buffer;
tr->buffer = max_tr.buffer;
max_tr.buffer = buf;
Should all the ring buffer API return success on NULL pointers?
>
> resizing a non-existent buffer should succeed. A two-liner patch. Not
> 160 lines of flux.
>
> Really, you need to think _hard_ how to avoid invasive-looking changes
> in late -rc's, because every extra line to review uses up precious
> review resources.
I appreciate the goal of minimal change, but I also want to keep things
robust.
Right now I'm thinking my other suggestion is the best. Just allocate the
max_tr.buffer and get rid of the CONFIG. This solution is very small, and
covers all corner cases.
-- Steve
--
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