On 08/01, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > And just in case. I believe that the patch is fine. > > Just one off-topic note,
Forgot to mention, > > @@ -632,7 +635,9 @@ static int release_all_trace_probes(void) > > /* TODO: Use batch unregistration */ > > while (!list_empty(&probe_list)) { > > tp = list_entry(probe_list.next, struct trace_probe, list); > > - unregister_trace_probe(tp); > > + ret = unregister_trace_probe(tp); > > + if (ret) > > + goto end; > > free_trace_probe(tp); > > } > > This obviously breaks all-or-nothing semantics (I mean, this breaks > the intent, the current code is buggy). > > I think we can't avoid this, and I hope this is fine. But then perhaps > we should simply remove the "list_for_each_entry" check above? And, of course, turn this "while (!list_empty())" into list_for_each_safe(). But again, this is almost off-topic and we can do this later. 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/