On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 08:10:16AM +0000, 平松雅巳 / HIRAMATU，MASAMI wrote: > Hi Namhyung, > > From: Namhyung Kim [mailto:namhy...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Namhyung Kim > > > >Hi Masami, > > > >On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 05:00:07AM +0000, 平松雅巳 / HIRAMATU，MASAMI wrote: > >> >From: Namhyung Kim [mailto:namhy...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Namhyung Kim > >> >The del_perf_probe_events() uses strfilter, but I think it can be > >> >problematic if other instances or users are using similar events at > >> >the same time. > >> > >> Yeah, since perf probe doesn't lock the ftrace, there should be a > >> timing bug, but it can be fixed easily by ignoring -ENOENT. :) > > > >By ignoring -ENOENT? Are you saying that there's a race between two > >deleters? Yes, of course, but I think that the bug will hit an adder > >and a deleter especially if automatic probing is used (by eBPF and/or > >SDT recording). > > So, I don't think we need the automatic event removing. Instead, I'd like to > suggest to keep it on the list.
But why? Do you want reuse the probes for next record session? I think if something is generated automatically, it should be removed automatically.. 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/
