From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756737AbZBKMFa (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Feb 2009 07:05:30 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754875AbZBKMFS (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Feb 2009 07:05:18 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:42748 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754852AbZBKMFQ (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Feb 2009 07:05:16 -0500 Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:05:07 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Frederic Weisbecker Cc: Wenji Huang , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rostedt@goodmis.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] trace: use the more accurate parameter. Message-ID: <20090211120507.GD23873@elte.hu> References: <1234225804-13314-1-git-send-email-wenji.huang@oracle.com> <20090210152624.GH5836@nowhere> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090210152624.GH5836@nowhere> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 07:30:04PM -0500, Wenji Huang wrote: > > Pass tsk to __update_max_tr instead of current to avoid latent hazard. > > > > Impact: clean up > > > > Signed-off-by: Wenji Huang > > --- > > kernel/trace/trace.c | 2 +- > > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace.c b/kernel/trace/trace.c > > index 5b1e9a9..c1592f1 100644 > > --- a/kernel/trace/trace.c > > +++ b/kernel/trace/trace.c > > @@ -335,7 +335,7 @@ __update_max_tr(struct trace_array *tr, struct task_struct *tsk, int cpu) > > data->rt_priority = tsk->rt_priority; > > > > /* record this tasks comm */ > > - tracing_record_cmdline(current); > > + tracing_record_cmdline(tsk); > > } > > > Indeed. At this stage, tsk is the next task in the middle of a context > switch. So I guess current is right, but this is more proper to use tsk. Rename it to 'next' then please. Ingo