On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 17:27 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 08:34:17 -0500
> Tom Zanussi <tom.zanu...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
>
> > @@ -1577,6 +1577,7 @@ static void event_remove(struct ftrace_event_call
> > *call)
> > if (file->event_call != call)
> > continue;
> > ftrace_event_enable_disable(file, 0);
> > + destroy_preds(file);
> > /*
> > * The do_for_each_event_file() is
> > * a double loop. After finding the call for this
> > @@ -1700,7 +1701,7 @@ static void __trace_remove_event_call(struct
> > ftrace_event_call *call)
> > {
> > event_remove(call);
> > trace_destroy_fields(call);
> > - destroy_preds(call);
> > + destroy_call_preds(call);
>
> A small nit, but I don't believe we need this anymore.
>
> First, what event that requires a call filter can be removed?
>
> Second, if one could be removed, the previous call to "event_remove"
> would remove the filter for us, as destroy_preds(file) calls
> destroy_call_preds() if the USE_CALL_FILTER flag is set.
>
> I'll keep it in for now, but may remove it later.
>
Good catch. Yeah, that destroy_call_preds() call is redundant - feel
free to remove it, or I can..
Thanks,
Tom
> -- Steve
>
>
> > }
> >
>
--
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/
