From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Tue, 14 Aug 2018 02:04:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:38306 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S23992960AbeHNAEJlKhMB (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Aug 2018 02:04:09 +0200 Received: from gandalf.local.home (cpe-66-24-56-78.stny.res.rr.com [66.24.56.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 71F072174B; Tue, 14 Aug 2018 00:04:01 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2018 20:03:59 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt To: Oleg Nesterov Cc: Ravi Bangoria , Song Liu , srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mhiramat@kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra , mingo@redhat.com, acme@kernel.org, alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com, jolsa@redhat.com, namhyung@kernel.org, open list , ananth@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Alexis Berlemont , naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux@armlinux.org.uk, ralf@linux-mips.org, paul.burton@mips.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 3/6] Uprobes: Support SDT markers having reference count (semaphore) Message-ID: <20180813200359.31311bbb@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20180813115019.GB28360@redhat.com> References: <20180809041856.1547-1-ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com> <20180809041856.1547-4-ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com> <95a1221e-aecc-42be-5239-a2c2429be176@linux.ibm.com> <20180813115019.GB28360@redhat.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.16.0 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 65579 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: rostedt@goodmis.org Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: linux-mips X-List-ID: linux-mips List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: linux-mips On Mon, 13 Aug 2018 13:50:19 +0200 Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 08/13, Ravi Bangoria wrote: > > > > On 08/11/2018 01:27 PM, Song Liu wrote: > > >> + > > >> +static void delayed_uprobe_delete(struct delayed_uprobe *du) > > >> +{ > > >> + if (!du) > > >> + return; > > > Do we really need this check? > > > > Not necessary though, but I would still like to keep it for a safety. > > Heh. I tried to ignore all minor problems in this version, but now that Song > mentioned this unnecessary check... > > Personally I really dislike the checks like this one. > > - It can confuse the reader who will try to understand the purpose > > - it can hide a bug if delayed_uprobe_delete(du) is actually called > with du == NULL. > > IMO, you should either remove it and let the kernel crash (to notice the > problem), or turn it into > > if (WARN_ON(!du)) > return; I'd prefer the more robust WARN_ON(!du) above instead of removing it. -- Steve