On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 10:41:20 +0200
Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote:
> @@ -412,23 +404,20 @@ stack_trace_sysctl(struct ctl_table *tab
> void __user *buffer, size_t *lenp,
> loff_t *ppos)
> {
> - int ret;
> + int ret, was_enabled;
One small nit. Could this be:
int was_enabled;
int ret;
I prefer only joining variables that are related on the same line.
Makes it look cleaner IMO.
>
> mutex_lock(&stack_sysctl_mutex);
> + was_enabled = !!stack_tracer_enabled;
>
Bah, not sure why I didn't do it this way to begin with. I think I
copied something else that couldn't do it this way for some reason and
didn't put any brain power behind the copy. :-/ But that was back in
2008 so I blame it on being "young and stupid" ;-)
Other then the above nit and removing the unneeded +1 in max_entries:
Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rost...@goodmis.org>
-- Steve
> ret = proc_dointvec(table, write, buffer, lenp, ppos);
>
> - if (ret || !write ||
> - (last_stack_tracer_enabled == !!stack_tracer_enabled))
> + if (ret || !write || (was_enabled == !!stack_tracer_enabled))
> goto out;
>
> - last_stack_tracer_enabled = !!stack_tracer_enabled;
> -
> if (stack_tracer_enabled)
> register_ftrace_function(&trace_ops);
> else
> unregister_ftrace_function(&trace_ops);
> -
> out:
> mutex_unlock(&stack_sysctl_mutex);
> return ret;
> @@ -444,7 +433,6 @@ static __init int enable_stacktrace(char
> strncpy(stack_trace_filter_buf, str + len, COMMAND_LINE_SIZE);
>
> stack_tracer_enabled = 1;
> - last_stack_tracer_enabled = 1;
> return 1;
> }
> __setup("stacktrace", enable_stacktrace);
>
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
