[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140714161525.GA12633@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 18:15:25 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@...ux.intel.com>,
"zhangwei(Jovi)" <jovi.zhangwei@...wei.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] tracing: instance_rmdir() leaks
ftrace_event_file->filter
On 07/14, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>
> > And could someone explain me why apply_subsystem_event_filter("0") clears
> > ->filter_string first, then the whole ->filter? It seems that the only
> > thing filter_free_subsystem_preds() should do is filter_disable(), no?
> > IOW, why the patch below (on top of this series) is wrong?
>
> I also think that the original code is bit strange. I agree with your
> change and name of the function should be changed to something like
> 'filter_disable_subsystem_filters' IMHO (it does nothing with preds).
> With this change, the apply_subsystem_event_filter can simply do below:
>
> if (!strcmp(strstrip(filter_string), "0")) {
> filter_disable_subsystem_filters(system, tr);
> /* Ensure all filters are no longer used */
> synchronize_sched();
> filter_free_subsystem_filters(system, tr);
> __free_filter(system->filter);
> system->filter = NULL;
> goto out_unlock;
> }
Yes, thanks, this was my point.
And I thought that I saw the same pattern somewhere else, but can't recall
where... Will try to recheck.
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