[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100630104934.GF23231@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 16:19:34 +0530
From: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <srostedt@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [Bugfix] unregister_trace_probe needs to be called under mutex
> > diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c b/kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c
> > index 4f11a56..67670cd 100644
> > --- a/kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c
> > @@ -269,14 +269,17 @@ static int create_trace_probe(int argc, char **argv)
> > pr_info("Delete command needs an event name.\n");
> > return -EINVAL;
> > }
> > + mutex_lock(&probe_lock);
> > tp = find_probe_event(event, group);
> > if (!tp) {
> > + mutex_unlock(&probe_lock);
> > pr_info("Event %s/%s doesn't exist.\n", group, event);
> > return -ENOENT;
> > }
> > /* delete an event */
> > unregister_trace_probe(tp);
> > free_trace_probe(tp);
> > + mutex_unlock(&probe_lock);
> > return 0;
> > }
>
> Shouldn't all that go through steven's ->reg() interface?
Currently the ->reg() interface does a enable/disable of the
probe_events. Infact the reg callback gets set in
register_trace_probe() function which inturn gets called from the
create_trace_probe().
Do we have plans to move probe_events creation to ->reg()
interface?
--
Regards
Srikar
--
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