Sorry again, didn't have time to review, will try tomorrow.
Looks good but a couple of minor nits, and perhaps we should
fix the bugs with unregister_trace_uprobe first... in kprobes
too _if_ I am right. I'll return tomorrow.
On 06/25, zhangwei(Jovi) wrote:
>
> -probe_event_enable(struct trace_uprobe *tu, int flag, filter_func_t filter)
> +probe_event_enable(struct trace_uprobe *tu, struct ftrace_event_file *file,
> + filter_func_t filter)
> {
> + int enabled = 0;
> int ret = 0;
>
> + /* we cannot call uprobe_register twice for same tu */
> if (is_trace_uprobe_enabled(tu))
> - return -EINTR;
> + enabled = 1;
Cosmetic again, "int enabled = 0" and then "if (is_trace_uprobe_enabled)"
looks a bit strange,
enabled = is_trace_uprobe_enabled();
looks a bit more clean.
> + if (file) {
> + struct event_file_link *link;
> +
> + if (tu->flags & TP_FLAG_PROFILE)
> + return -EINTR;
> +
> + link = kmalloc(sizeof(*link), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!link)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + link->file = file;
> + list_add_rcu(&link->list, &tu->files);
I agree with Masami, list_add_rcu_tail() looks better even if this
doesn't really matter.
Oleg.
--
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/
