(2013/05/10 2:08), Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 12:34 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: >> On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 12:27 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: >> >>> We probably should have a better way to initialize this. As there are 26 >>> ftrace_ops currently in the kernel (and this patch doesn't cover all of >>> them). Maybe have the first time its registered to initialize it.
Oh, I missed many of them :( >> Crap, but it can be used before that. Hmm, I guess all ftrace functions >> will need to check that flag first. We do something similar for rt_mutex >> in -rt. > > I added this on top of your patch. I kept the INIT_REGEX_LOCK as it's > only local to ftrace.c and wont spread further. Also, the > ftrace_list_end ftrace_ops is just a place holder (needed for race > conditions that can have function tracers call its stub), so it does not > need to be initialized. If anything tries to grab its mutex, that's a > bug anyway. > > What do you think? Hmm, would we really need to have the additional flag? I mean, do we better force ftrace user to use ftrace_ops_init before calling such functions as mutex itself does? Thank you, -- Masami HIRAMATSU IT Management Research Dept. Linux Technology Center Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory E-mail: masami.hiramatsu...@hitachi.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
