[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BC0ABCA.1020004@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 12:48:10 -0400
From: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...hat.com>
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
systemtap <systemtap@...rces.redhat.com>,
DLE <dle-develop@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip v2 7/8] perf probe: Remove die() from probe-finder
code
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> Em Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 12:20:22AM -0400, Masami Hiramatsu escreveu:
>> Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>>> Em Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 07:18:38PM -0400, Masami Hiramatsu escreveu:
>>>>> tvar->value = xstrdup(regs);
>>>>> if (ref) {
>>>>> tvar->ref = xzalloc(sizeof(struct kprobe_trace_arg_ref));
>>>
>>> We have to kill those xzcalloc, etc, too they are die() in disguise :-)
>>
>> Hmm, I think that will cost high, because only failing to allocate memory,
>> which theoretically means we can't continue to operate it. In that case,
>> we'd better just use backtrace() and die().
>
> Consider a situation where we are trying to allocate lots of objects
> allocated for some big operation (adding probes for all functions in all
> threads, whatever), we can just say to the user "hey, you don't have
> memory to do this" but other operations are possible, so calling
> panic(), oops, die() is not the right thing to do.
Hmm, OK, so we'd better remove wrapper.c...
Thank you,
--
Masami Hiramatsu
e-mail: mhiramat@...hat.com
--
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