From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933656Ab2C2R0a (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:26:30 -0400 Received: from s15943758.onlinehome-server.info ([217.160.130.188]:35489 "EHLO mail.x86-64.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757666Ab2C2R0Z (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Mar 2012 13:26:25 -0400 Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 19:26:19 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov To: John Kacur Cc: Steven Rostedt , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH] ftrace: Remove a superfluous check Message-ID: <20120329172618.GF6409@aftab> References: <1333039463-24268-1-git-send-email-bp@amd64.org> <20120329171140.GE6409@aftab> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 07:17:19PM +0200, John Kacur wrote: > It looks okay to me. Technically it's not functionally equivalent > though, because now when __register_ftrace_function is called > directly, (in other paths), the test has an unlikely there. I know, but ftrace_disabled is really unlikely to be set to 1 because we set it only if ftrace_init() fails and on the panic path in ftrace_kill(). So I agree that it is not functionally completely equivalent but it should be correct with the unlikely. > See what teven says, otherwise, you can have my reviewed by. Thanks. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Advanced Micro Devices GmbH Einsteinring 24, 85609 Dornach GM: Alberto Bozzo Reg: Dornach, Landkreis Muenchen HRB Nr. 43632 WEEE Registernr: 129 19551