[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20180813084922.GB44470@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2018 01:49:22 -0700
From: Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Song Liu <liu.song.a23@...il.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, mhiramat@...nel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, mingo@...hat.com,
acme@...nel.org, alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com,
jolsa@...hat.com, namhyung@...nel.org,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
ananth@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
Alexis Berlemont <alexis.berlemont@...il.com>,
naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
linux@...linux.org.uk, ralf@...ux-mips.org, paul.burton@...s.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 5/6] trace_uprobe/sdt: Prevent multiple reference
counter for same uprobe
* Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@...ux.ibm.com> [2018-08-13 13:49:44]:
> Hi Song,
>
> On 08/11/2018 01:42 PM, Song Liu wrote:
> > Do we really need this given we already have PATCH 4/6?
> > uprobe_regsiter() can be called
> > out of trace_uprobe, this patch won't catch all conflicts anyway.
>
> Right but it, at least, catch all conflicts happening via trace_uprobe.
>
> I don't mind in removing this patch but I would like to get an opinion of
> Oleg/Srikar/Steven/Masami.
>
I would suggest to keep it, atleast it can ctah conflicts happening via
trace_uprobe.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists