[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220731124824.6d065b86@rorschach.local.home>
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2022 12:48:24 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...nel.org>
Cc: Tao Zhou <tao.zhou@...ux.dev>,
Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
Gabriele Paoloni <gpaoloni@...hat.com>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-trace-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V9 01/16] rv: Add Runtime Verification (RV) interface
On Sun, 31 Jul 2022 17:56:27 +0200
Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@...nel.org> wrote:
> > Yeah, this is not that clear from my above words expression. I said the return
> > value of da_monitor_init_*() will be 0, but it is not right. Global and per-cpu
> > monitor will return 0, per-task monitor may return a positive value when the
> > slot is equal or greater than RV_PER_TASK_MONITOR_INIT(how possible this will
> > happen I do know yet). This is from reading the current code implementation.
> > I just want to say that there may be a bug here.
>
> goto my previous email;
If you increment RV_PER_TASK_MONITORS to 2, I believe Tao is correct.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists