[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140508103225.GA10851@krava.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 12:32:25 +0200
From: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@....com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] perf record: Propagate exit status of a command
line workload
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 04:59:53PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
SNIP
> +
> + if (!err && !file->is_pipe) {
> + rec->session->header.data_size += rec->bytes_written;
> +
> + if (!rec->no_buildid)
> + process_buildids(rec);
> + perf_session__write_header(rec->session, rec->evlist,
> + file->fd, true);
> + }
> +
> + if (signr != -1) {
> + signal(signr, SIG_DFL);
> + raise(signr);
> + }
hum.. so we dont call perf_session__delete in case we propagate
the signal.. also the outer function's cleanups are not called:
perf_evlist__delete(rec->evlist);
symbol__exit();
the only cleanup I found that actually matters here and won't be
called is 'vdso__exit' which removes the temp vdso library file.
Maybe we could have one on_exit callback raising the signal
if needed.. at the time we are sure we called all out cleanup
functions.
thanks,
jirka
--
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