Re: Re: Re: [PATCH] tracing/kprobe: Recover old array if fails to enable kprobe

[Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com>]

(2013/07/03 8:02), Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-06-30 at 16:46 +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>> (2013/06/29 3:43), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>> On 06/28, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 16:27 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, but this conflicts with the other changes I sent. They have
>>>>> your acks, and iiuc Steven is going to apply them.
>>>>
>>>> I'll see if I can solve any conflicts. I need to get my -rt versions out
>>>> and start on the new 3.6 stable today. Then after that, I plan on going
>>>> though and getting all the tracing patches settled.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>>>> Besides, this fix is not complete afaics, we should also clear
>>>>> TP_FLAG_TRACE/PROFILE if __enable_trace_probe() fails.
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> And I forgot to mention, until we fix the races we discuss in another
>>> thread, this WARN_ON() doesn't look right. So perhaps it would be
>>> really better to delay this change a bit.
>>
>> Agreed, this fix is not a critical one. The racing problem of
>> dynamic events is what we have to solve at first.
>>
> 
> Do you want to reapply this on top of my current for-next branch? Or can
> this wait?

This is a minor one (and must not happen), and AFAICS fixing all the problem
around this requires more works i.e. exporting event_mutex etc.(as I said)
I'll do that asap. :)

Thank you,

-- 
Masami HIRAMATSU
IT Management Research Dept. Linux Technology Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
E-mail: masami.hiramatsu.pt@hitachi.com