Hi Masami, On Fri, 04 Jul 2014 10:00:51 +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > (2014/07/03 16:44), Namhyung Kim wrote: >> Hi Masami, >> >> On Thu, 03 Jul 2014 14:46:09 +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: >>> One possible scenario is here; someone disables an event and tries to remove >>> it (both will be done by different syscalls). If we don't synchronize >>> the first disabling, the event flag set disabled, but the event itself >>> is not disabled. Thus event handler is still possible to be running >>> somewhere when it is removed. >> >> But, IIUC both of disable and remove path are protected by event_mutex. >> So one cannot see the case of disabled event flag but enabled event, no? > > No, the flag is not protect the trace event handler itself. > I meant that running handlers and the flag was not synchronized.
Ah, right. Thanks for explanation. :) Thanks, Namhyung -- 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/
