On Fri, 26 Dec 2025 12:05:31 +0100 Julia Lawall <[email protected]> wrote:
> soft_mode is not read in the enable case, so drop the assignment. > Drop also the comment text that refers to the assignment and realign > the comment. > > Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <[email protected]> > > --- > > Since soft_more is not used, there is no direct line from the goal of > verification to finding this problem. While reviewing the verification text awhile ago, I had made this same patch. But it never got queued :-p Anyway, since you officially posted your patch, I'll take it instead ;-) -- Steve > > kernel/trace/trace_events.c | 7 +++---- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_events.c b/kernel/trace/trace_events.c > index 76067529db61..137b4d9bb116 100644 > --- a/kernel/trace/trace_events.c > +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_events.c > @@ -826,16 +826,15 @@ static int __ftrace_event_enable_disable(struct > trace_event_file *file, > * When soft_disable is set and enable is set, we want to > * register the tracepoint for the event, but leave the event > * as is. That means, if the event was already enabled, we do > - * nothing (but set soft_mode). If the event is disabled, we > - * set SOFT_DISABLED before enabling the event tracepoint, so > - * it still seems to be disabled. > + * nothing. If the event is disabled, we set SOFT_DISABLED > + * before enabling the event tracepoint, so it still seems > + * to be disabled. > */ > if (!soft_disable) > clear_bit(EVENT_FILE_FL_SOFT_DISABLED_BIT, > &file->flags); > else { > if (atomic_inc_return(&file->sm_ref) > 1) > break; > - soft_mode = true; > /* Enable use of trace_buffered_event */ > trace_buffered_event_enable(); > }
