linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 04/11] trace-cmd: Extract parse_record_options() from trace

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1511968694.4897.111.camel@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 29 Nov 2017 17:18:14 +0200
From:   Vladislav Valtchev <vladislav.valtchev@...il.com>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, y.karadz@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/11] trace-cmd: Extract parse_record_options() from
 trace_record()

On Wed, 2017-11-29 at 09:53 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2017 20:17:46 +0200
> Vladislav Valtchev <vladislav.valtchev@...il.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 2017-11-28 at 11:48 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > 
> > > Is there a reason that init_instance() isn't called in
> > > init_common_record_context()?
> > >   
> > 
> > Hi Steven,
> > 
> > init_instance() has been put into init_common_record_context() later,
> > in patch 8, "Making start,extract,stream,profile separate funcs".
> 
> I have to ask. Why isn't it done in this patch. This patch appears to
> be the proper place to put it.
> 

There is no reason, actually. You're absolutely right.
It's a leftover from several iterations of fixes (originally
'instance' was not part of ctx).

Therefore, I'll move that call to init_instance() inside init_common_record_context().


Vlad