From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753404Ab1AFSr4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jan 2011 13:47:56 -0500 Received: from mail-bw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:64331 "EHLO mail-bw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753201Ab1AFSrz (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jan 2011 13:47:55 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=b7BYZteKMfT+3luSfA1q9bIDiKMr5y02Apy8WZu1W+gbcMl8cWiN9KrPhxSapX73vn i8+NfXKOoN6HNm+DAndEwi57stLAM0V/oK+sxTCuKqHGLW1Xlhr5ReB7zSPBmsPuzIPn AJjNNrw7Auk80DbRFWQPVJGV7KB1YMcWCkwLg= Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 19:47:49 +0100 From: Frederic Weisbecker To: Mathieu Desnoyers Cc: David Miller , rostedt@goodmis.org, nhorman@tuxdriver.com, zhaolei@cn.fujitsu.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, tglx@linutronix.de Subject: Re: [PATCH] trace event skb remove duplicate null-pointer check Message-ID: <20110106184747.GG2308@nowhere> References: <20110106175319.GA30610@Krystal> <20110106.101544.193712005.davem@davemloft.net> <20110106181726.GF2308@nowhere> <20110106183802.GA2335@Krystal> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110106183802.GA2335@Krystal> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 01:38:02PM -0500, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > * Frederic Weisbecker (fweisbec@gmail.com) wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 10:15:44AM -0800, David Miller wrote: > > > From: Mathieu Desnoyers > > > Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 12:53:19 -0500 > > > > > > > The check for NULL skb in the kfree_skb trace event is a duplicate from the > > > > check already done in its only caller, kfree_skb(). Remove this duplicate check. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers > > > > Acked-by: Neil Horman > > > > > > Acked-by: David S. Miller > > > > May be you want to take that on the net tree? Looks like more appropriate. > > Of course this can go through the tracing tree as well. > > It might be easier to manage the TRACE_EVENT() reshaping (removal of semicolumn, > tp_assign, etc) I am preparing if, at this stage, we merge most of the > include/trace/event patches through a single tree (the tracing tree). Otherwise > we might end up with more commit cross-dependencies between the trees, and > increase the risk of conflicts. Alright, let's take that on the tracing tree. I'll apply them if Steve doesn't beat me at it. Thanks.