[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110128045353.GU19725@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 10:23:53 +0530
From: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
SystemTap <systemtap@...rces.redhat.com>,
Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 2.6.37-rc5-tip 8/20] 8: uprobes: mmap and fork
hooks.
* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> [2011-01-27 12:03:57]:
> On Wed, 2011-01-26 at 14:36 +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
>
> > > Not to mention that p is uninitialized. Did this code ever work?
> >
> > I think the original patch that I sent had p initialized. I think it got
> > dropped off by Peter when he replied. Please do confirm.
>
>
> > +static void search_within_subtree(struct rb_node *n, struct inode *inode,
> > + struct list_head *tmp_list)
> > +{
> > + struct rb_node *p;
> > +
> > + if (p)
> > + __search_within_subtree(p, inode, tmp_list);
> > +
> > + p = n->rb_right;
> > + if (p)
> > + __search_within_subtree(p, inode, tmp_list);
> > +}
> > +
> >
> The above is from the original patch. 'p' does not look initialized to
> me.
>
> -- Steve
>
>
Here is the extract from the original patch at
https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/12/16/74 that I sent to LKML and I dont see
p being uninitialized.
+
+static void search_within_subtree(struct rb_node *n, struct inode *inode,
+ struct list_head *tmp_list)
+{
+ struct rb_node *p;
+
+ p = n->rb_left;
+ if (p)
+ __search_within_subtree(p, inode, tmp_list);
+
+ p = n->rb_right;
+ if (p)
+ __search_within_subtree(p, inode, tmp_list);
+}
+
However I have already agreed to remove this recursion and replace it
with a rb_next() logic.
--
Thanks and 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