On 05/22/2014 10:04 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 09:52:46AM +0300, Adrian Hunter wrote: >>> diff --git a/fs/exec.c b/fs/exec.c >>> index 476f3ebf437e..8d51d7ce3dcf 100644 >>> --- a/fs/exec.c >>> +++ b/fs/exec.c >>> @@ -1111,6 +1111,7 @@ void setup_new_exec(struct linux_binprm * bprm) >>> set_dumpable(current->mm, suid_dumpable); >>> >>> set_task_comm(current, kbasename(bprm->filename)); >>> + perf_event_exec(); >> >> Shouldn't that be the other way around i.e. >> >> + perf_event_exec(); >> set_task_comm(current, kbasename(bprm->filename)); > > I suppose so indeed. > >> Also what about flagging the comm event that corresponds to an exec e.g. > > I think it was a mistake to conflate the two concepts, and separating > them into different functions makes things clearer.
My patch was not related to that. It was to get effectively an "exec" event, by piggybacking the comm event. -- 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/
