[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111007170347.GB32319@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2011 19:03:47 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jim Keniston <jkenisto@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3.1.0-rc4-tip 3/26] Uprobes: register/unregister
probes.
On 10/06, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
>
> * Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com> [2011-10-05 20:50:08]:
>
> yes we might be doing an unnecessary __register_uprobe() but because it
> raced with unregister_uprobe() and got the lock, we would avoid doing a
> __unregister_uprobe().
>
> However I am okay to move the lock before del_consumer().
To me this looks a bit "safer" even if currently __register is idempotent.
But,
> Please let me
> know how you prefer this.
No, no, Srikar. Please do what you prefer. You are the author.
And btw I forgot to mention that initially I wrongly thought this is buggy.
Oleg.
--
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