[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250319051317.670ba86c@batman.local.home>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2025 05:13:17 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: "Masami Hiramatsu (Google)" <mhiramat@...nel.org>
Cc: Gabriele Paoloni <gpaoloni@...hat.com>, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] tracing: fix return value in
__ftrace_event_enable_disable for TRACE_REG_UNREGISTER
On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 11:07:00 +0900
Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
> > --- a/kernel/trace/trace_events.c
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_events.c
> > @@ -790,7 +790,7 @@ static int __ftrace_event_enable_disable(struct trace_event_file *file,
> > clear_bit(EVENT_FILE_FL_RECORDED_TGID_BIT, &file->flags);
> > }
> >
> > - call->class->reg(call, TRACE_REG_UNREGISTER, file);
> > + ret = call->class->reg(call, TRACE_REG_UNREGISTER, file);
>
> This is not enough. As same as enable failure, this function needs to handle
> this error to report it and break.
Perhaps all we should do here is:
WARN_ON_ONCE(ret);
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists