On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 9:34 PM, Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 2013-06-25 at 18:37 +0800, zhangwei(Jovi) wrote: >> On 2013/6/25 18:10, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: >> > (2013/06/25 17:15), zhangwei(Jovi) wrote: >> >> There have no good reason to call free_trace_probe >> >> every time when unregister_trace_probe return 0. >> >> >> >> Move free_trace_probe into unregister_trace_probe, >> >> make code simpler. >> > >> > Sorry, nack. For the symmetrical coding reason, I don't like >> > involving "free" and "alloc" into "unregister"/"register" >> > functions. I think those should be just another actions. >> > >> > Thank you, >> >> That's fine, I just saw there have a little inconsistent between >> trace_kprobe.c and trace_uprobe.c. >> > > Is there a place that trace_kprobe.c frees the tp structure in > unregister? >
I won't argue put the free operation into unregister function in trace_kprobe.c, as I said, one minor problem is the code pattern between trace_kprobe.c and trace_uprobe.c is so similar on unregister, but with little inconsistent, maybe we can unify those code in trace_probe.c someday. Anyway, this is not big functionality issue, free to leave in there if authors don't argue. jovi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
