[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1251211963.7538.1164.camel@twins>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:52:43 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Li Zefan <lizf@...fujitsu.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracing/profile: Fix profile_disable vs module_unload
On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 12:47 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-08-25 at 12:39 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > > Do you really wish to burden every tracepoint user with the extra
> > > logic needed to deal with modules?
> >
> > Not necessarily - i'm just outlining why i think that the 'dont
> > allow subsystems to utilize tracepoint callbacks' is a restriction
> > we should not live with voluntarily.
>
> Well, unless someone has a bright idea that's what it comes down to.
OK, I still think modules probing their own tracepoints its stupid [*],
but what you could do is iterate the tracepoint's callback list and see
if it has a callback outside of the module code section and then fail
the unload.
[*] in the really utterly fundamentally wrong stupid class.
--
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