[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130703221847.GA15566@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2013 00:18:47 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
"zhangwei(Jovi)" <jovi.zhangwei@...wei.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...stprotocols.net>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: PATCH? trace_remove_event_call() should fail if call is active
On 07/03, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> No, I would avoid any changes to the debugfs infrastructure.
YEs, agreed.
> OK, what about the below patch, followed by an updated version of your
> patch. I'll send that as a reply to this one.
Steven, you do understand that I can't review the changes in this area.
But at first glance, _I think_ this should work. And this is much simpler,
->open() blocks trace_remove_event_call() (you added TRACE_EVENT_FL_REF_MASK
check into the next patch).
Which tree this patch is based on? I have pulled linux-trace.git#for-next
and I do not see tracing_open_generic_file/etc in trace_events.c.
I do not understand what protects call->flags, I guess there is another
lock which I do not see in my tree?
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