[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.0902201252400.13747@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 12:54:11 -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>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] ftrace: break out modify loop immediately on detection
of error
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
> > --- a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> > @@ -561,11 +561,15 @@ static void ftrace_replace_code(int enable)
> > if ((system_state == SYSTEM_BOOTING) ||
> > !core_kernel_text(rec->ip)) {
> > ftrace_free_rec(rec);
> > - } else
> > + } else {
> > ftrace_bug(failed, rec->ip);
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> > }
> > }
> > }
> > + out:
> > + return;
>
> wouldnt a simple 'break' suffice? Hm, nope,
> do_for_each_ftrace_rec() is a double loop.
>
> Then perhaps a 'return' would perhaps be cleaner in this case.
> (even though it does make the flow a bit assymetric - the out
> label and the empty return looks a bit ugly.)
I guess a return would work too. I did the out jump to annotate the escape
a bit more. Both are ugly IMHO. I'll switch it to return in the else
statement.
-- 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