Re: [PATCH 1/2] tracing/kprobes: move free_trace_probe into unregister_trace_probe

["zhangwei(Jovi)" <jovi.zhangwei@huawei.com>]

On 2013/6/25 18:10, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> (2013/06/25 17:15), zhangwei(Jovi) wrote:
>> There have no good reason to call free_trace_probe
>> every time when unregister_trace_probe return 0.
>>
>> Move free_trace_probe into unregister_trace_probe,
>> make code simpler.
> 
> Sorry, nack. For the symmetrical coding reason, I don't like
> involving "free" and "alloc" into "unregister"/"register"
> functions. I think those should be just another actions.
> 
> Thank you,

That's fine, I just saw there have a little inconsistent between
trace_kprobe.c and trace_uprobe.c.

Please ignore this patch if you don't like. :)
Thanks.

> 
>>
>> Signed-off-by: zhangwei(Jovi) <jovi.zhangwei@huawei.com>
>> Cc: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com>
>> Cc: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>  kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c |    5 +----
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c b/kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c
>> index 9f46e98..f193c38 100644
>> --- a/kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c
>> +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c
>> @@ -401,6 +401,7 @@ static int unregister_trace_probe(struct trace_probe *tp)
>>  	__unregister_trace_probe(tp);
>>  	list_del(&tp->list);
>>  	unregister_probe_event(tp);
>> +	free_trace_probe(tp);
>>
>>  	return 0;
>>  }
>> @@ -419,7 +420,6 @@ static int register_trace_probe(struct trace_probe *tp)
>>  		ret = unregister_trace_probe(old_tp);
>>  		if (ret < 0)
>>  			goto end;
>> -		free_trace_probe(old_tp);
>>  	}
>>
>>  	/* Register new event */
>> @@ -550,8 +550,6 @@ static int create_trace_probe(int argc, char **argv)
>>  		}
>>  		/* delete an event */
>>  		ret = unregister_trace_probe(tp);
>> -		if (ret == 0)
>> -			free_trace_probe(tp);
>>  		mutex_unlock(&probe_lock);
>>  		return ret;
>>  	}
>> @@ -680,7 +678,6 @@ static int release_all_trace_probes(void)
>>  	while (!list_empty(&probe_list)) {
>>  		tp = list_entry(probe_list.next, struct trace_probe, list);
>>  		unregister_trace_probe(tp);
>> -		free_trace_probe(tp);
>>  	}
>>
>>  end:
>>
> 
>