From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932361Ab1KDPZR (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Nov 2011 11:25:17 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:1591 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755416Ab1KDPZP (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Nov 2011 11:25:15 -0400 Message-ID: <4EB403C0.9030503@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 10:24:48 -0500 From: David Smith User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:7.0) Gecko/20110927 Thunderbird/7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pedro Alves CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Steven Rostedt , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2] Tracepoint: add exec tracepoint References: <4EB2BA74.5070207@redhat.com> <201111041208.38163.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <201111041208.38163.pedro@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/04/2011 07:08 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: > On Thursday 03 November 2011 15:59:48, David Smith wrote: >> + if (depth == 0) { >> + trace_sched_process_exec(current, bprm); >> ptrace_event(PTRACE_EVENT_EXEC, >> old_pid); >> + } > > Won't tracepoints be interested in the old pid as well? Or does bprm > carry that info? That was only recently added to the ptrace event, > which probably postdates your original patch. Looking back at commit bb188d7 and the reasons why 'old_pid' was added, it seems like a good idea to go ahead and add 'old_pid' to the tracepoint as well. v3 coming up... Thanks for looking at this. -- David Smith dsmith@redhat.com Red Hat http://www.redhat.com 256.217.0141 (direct) 256.837.0057 (fax)