[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1363820491.6345.21.camel@gandalf.local.home>
Date:	Wed, 20 Mar 2013 19:01:31 -0400
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc:	kpark3469@...il.com, keun-o.park@...driver.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracepoints: prevents null probe from being added
On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 14:01 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Steven Rostedt (rostedt@...dmis.org) wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 12:18 +0900, kpark3469@...il.com wrote:
> > > From: Sahara <keun-o.park@...driver.com>
> > > 
> > > Somehow tracepoint_entry_add/remove_probe functions allow a null probe
> > > function.
> > 
> > You actually hit this in practice, or is this just something that you
> > observe from code review?
> > 
> > >  Especially on getting a null probe in remove function, it seems
> > > to be used to remove all probe functions in the entry.
> > 
> > Hmm, that actually sounds like a feature.
> 
> Yep. It's been a long time since I wrote this code, but the removal code
> seems to use NULL probe pointer to remove all probes for a given
> tracepoint.
> 
> I'd be tempted to just validate non-NULL probe within
> tracepoint_entry_add_probe() and let other sites as is, just in case
> anyone would be using this feature.
> 
> I cannot say that I have personally used this "remove all" feature much
> though.
> 
I agree. I don't see anything wrong in leaving the null probe feature in
the removal code. But updating the add code looks like a proper change.
-- Steve
--
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
 
