[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190418181938.2e2a9a04@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2019 18:19:38 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
kasan-dev@...glegroups.com,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@...il.com>,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>,
David Sterba <dsterba@...e.com>, Chris Mason <clm@...com>,
Josef Bacik <josef@...icpanda.com>,
linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, dm-devel@...hat.com,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
Alasdair Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org,
Joonas Lahtinen <joonas.lahtinen@...ux.intel.com>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...ux.intel.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch V2 01/29] tracing: Cleanup stack trace code
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 10:41:20 +0200
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> @@ -412,23 +404,20 @@ stack_trace_sysctl(struct ctl_table *tab
> void __user *buffer, size_t *lenp,
> loff_t *ppos)
> {
> - int ret;
> + int ret, was_enabled;
One small nit. Could this be:
int was_enabled;
int ret;
I prefer only joining variables that are related on the same line.
Makes it look cleaner IMO.
>
> mutex_lock(&stack_sysctl_mutex);
> + was_enabled = !!stack_tracer_enabled;
>
Bah, not sure why I didn't do it this way to begin with. I think I
copied something else that couldn't do it this way for some reason and
didn't put any brain power behind the copy. :-/ But that was back in
2008 so I blame it on being "young and stupid" ;-)
Other then the above nit and removing the unneeded +1 in max_entries:
Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@...dmis.org>
-- Steve
> ret = proc_dointvec(table, write, buffer, lenp, ppos);
>
> - if (ret || !write ||
> - (last_stack_tracer_enabled == !!stack_tracer_enabled))
> + if (ret || !write || (was_enabled == !!stack_tracer_enabled))
> goto out;
>
> - last_stack_tracer_enabled = !!stack_tracer_enabled;
> -
> if (stack_tracer_enabled)
> register_ftrace_function(&trace_ops);
> else
> unregister_ftrace_function(&trace_ops);
> -
> out:
> mutex_unlock(&stack_sysctl_mutex);
> return ret;
> @@ -444,7 +433,6 @@ static __init int enable_stacktrace(char
> strncpy(stack_trace_filter_buf, str + len, COMMAND_LINE_SIZE);
>
> stack_tracer_enabled = 1;
> - last_stack_tracer_enabled = 1;
> return 1;
> }
> __setup("stacktrace", enable_stacktrace);
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists