[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51D27B88.1020002@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 15:04:40 +0800
From: "zhangwei(Jovi)" <jovi.zhangwei@...wei.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
CC: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] tracing/uprobes: Support ftrace_event_file base multibuffer
On 2013/7/2 5:10, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 07/01, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>
>> On 06/29, zhangwei(Jovi) wrote:
>>>
>>> [v3->v4]:
>>
>> I am wondering how much you will hate me if I suggest to make v5 ;)
>>
>> But look, imho probe_event_enable() looks a bit more confusing than
>> it needs.
>
> And I am a bit worried this patch removes the is_trace_uprobe_enabled()
> check from probe_event_enable()...
>
> Yes I think it was never needed, afaics TRACE_REG_*_UNREGISTER can't
> come without successfull _REGISTER. And the bogus uprobe_unregister()
> is harmless in this particular case.
>
> So I think this is fine, but perhaps the changelog should mention this
> "offtopic" change.
>
> Oleg.
>
I think it would be better to leave that checking in there now, we can remove
that checking in a separated patch if needed.
(I need to make sure the code will not go to there because each ftrace_event_file
already have enable/disable flag, also need to look at perf enable/disable case).
jovi
--
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