[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20211025093541.6ced3995@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 09:35:41 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...nel.org>
Cc: paulmck@...nel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Tom Zanussi <zanussi@...nel.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-devel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 04/19] trace/osnoise: Support a list of trace_array
*tr
On Mon, 25 Oct 2021 11:10:26 +0200
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...nel.org> wrote:
> The start/stop/reset operations are called from trace "core" operations. So they
> are all protected/serialized by trace_types_lock (by trace/core).
>
> So, it seems that the way to go is to remove the rcu_read_lock/unlock() from
> unregister, adding a lockdep check to see if trace_types_lock is help as a bonus?
Yes, I would recommend the lockdep assert added. This way it also documents
what lock protects modification of the list.
Thanks,
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists