On Wed, 2013-07-31 at 13:47 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 07/30, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > Using the i_private and event_mutex > > to verify that the event still exists to solve the race. > > To remind, we also need the "debugfs: debugfs_remove_recursive() must > not rely on list_empty(d_subdirs)" patch, otherwise we still have the > problems with the opened files.
Do these patches depend on that patch? Should I rebase to have that patch first? -- Steve > > Just in case, we need this fix even if .open() does trace_array_get() > or tracing_open_generic_file() (removed by recent changes), rmdir can > be called before we increment the counter and the deleted dentry breaks > debugfs_remove_recursive(). > > But after the recent changes this fix becomes more important. An opened > file confuses debugfs_remove_recursive() and after that you can't create > another probe. -- 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/
