I need to read this (hopefully final) version carefully. I'll try to do
this before next Monday.

just one note,

On 08/09, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
>
> +static void delayed_uprobe_remove(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct mm_struct 
> *mm)
> +{
> +     struct list_head *pos, *q;
> +     struct delayed_uprobe *du;
> +
> +     if (!uprobe && !mm)
> +             return;
> +
> +     list_for_each_safe(pos, q, &delayed_uprobe_list) {
> +             du = list_entry(pos, struct delayed_uprobe, list);
> +
> +             if (uprobe && mm && du->uprobe == uprobe && du->mm == mm)
> +                     delayed_uprobe_delete(du);
> +             else if (!uprobe && du->mm == mm)
> +                     delayed_uprobe_delete(du);
> +             else if (!mm && du->uprobe == uprobe)
> +                     delayed_uprobe_delete(du);
> +     }

Sorry, I can't resist... this doesn't look very nice. How about

        list_for_each_safe(pos, q, &delayed_uprobe_list) {
                du = list_entry(pos, struct delayed_uprobe, list);

                if (uprobe && du->uprobe != uprobe)
                        continue;
                if (mm && du->mm != mm)
                        continue;

                delayed_uprobe_delete();
        }

I won't insist, this is cosmetic after all, but please consider this change
in case you will need to send v9.

Oleg.

Reply via email to