From: "zhangwei(Jovi)" <jovi.zhangwei@huawei.com>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com>,
Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] tracing/uprobes: Support ftrace_event_file base multibuffer
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 15:04:40 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51D27B88.1020002@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130701211003.GA2147@redhat.com>
On 2013/7/2 5:10, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 07/01, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>
>> On 06/29, zhangwei(Jovi) wrote:
>>>
>>> [v3->v4]:
>>
>> I am wondering how much you will hate me if I suggest to make v5 ;)
>>
>> But look, imho probe_event_enable() looks a bit more confusing than
>> it needs.
>
> And I am a bit worried this patch removes the is_trace_uprobe_enabled()
> check from probe_event_enable()...
>
> Yes I think it was never needed, afaics TRACE_REG_*_UNREGISTER can't
> come without successfull _REGISTER. And the bogus uprobe_unregister()
> is harmless in this particular case.
>
> So I think this is fine, but perhaps the changelog should mention this
> "offtopic" change.
>
> Oleg.
>
I think it would be better to leave that checking in there now, we can remove
that checking in a separated patch if needed.
(I need to make sure the code will not go to there because each ftrace_event_file
already have enable/disable flag, also need to look at perf enable/disable case).
jovi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-07-02 7:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-06-29 7:51 [PATCH v4] tracing/uprobes: Support ftrace_event_file base multibuffer zhangwei(Jovi)
2013-07-01 19:22 ` Steven Rostedt
2013-07-01 20:27 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-07-01 21:10 ` Oleg Nesterov
2013-07-02 7:04 ` zhangwei(Jovi) [this message]
2013-07-02 6:51 ` zhangwei(Jovi)
2013-07-02 11:26 ` Masami Hiramatsu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=51D27B88.1020002@huawei.com \
--to=jovi.zhangwei@huawei.com \
--cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox