[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131105172745.2ebbd6ba@gandalf.local.home>
Date:	Tue, 5 Nov 2013 17:27:45 -0500
From:	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:	Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] tracing: Update event filters for multibuffer
On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 08:34:17 -0500
Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> @@ -1577,6 +1577,7 @@ static void event_remove(struct ftrace_event_call *call)
>  		if (file->event_call != call)
>  			continue;
>  		ftrace_event_enable_disable(file, 0);
> +		destroy_preds(file);
>  		/*
>  		 * The do_for_each_event_file() is
>  		 * a double loop. After finding the call for this
> @@ -1700,7 +1701,7 @@ static void __trace_remove_event_call(struct ftrace_event_call *call)
>  {
>  	event_remove(call);
>  	trace_destroy_fields(call);
> -	destroy_preds(call);
> +	destroy_call_preds(call);
A small nit, but I don't believe we need this anymore.
First, what event that requires a call filter can be removed?
Second, if one could be removed, the previous call to "event_remove"
would remove the filter for us, as destroy_preds(file) calls
destroy_call_preds() if the USE_CALL_FILTER flag is set.
I'll keep it in for now, but may remove it later.
-- 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