[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130801134943.GA10452@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 15:49:43 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
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>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/4] tracing/kprobes: Fail to unregister if probe
event files are open
On 08/01, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> And just in case. I believe that the patch is fine.
>
> Just one off-topic note,
Forgot to mention,
> > @@ -632,7 +635,9 @@ static int release_all_trace_probes(void)
> > /* TODO: Use batch unregistration */
> > while (!list_empty(&probe_list)) {
> > tp = list_entry(probe_list.next, struct trace_probe, list);
> > - unregister_trace_probe(tp);
> > + ret = unregister_trace_probe(tp);
> > + if (ret)
> > + goto end;
> > free_trace_probe(tp);
> > }
>
> This obviously breaks all-or-nothing semantics (I mean, this breaks
> the intent, the current code is buggy).
>
> I think we can't avoid this, and I hope this is fine. But then perhaps
> we should simply remove the "list_for_each_entry" check above?
And, of course, turn this "while (!list_empty())" into list_for_each_safe().
But again, this is almost off-topic and we can do this later.
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