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