On 07/01, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 19:38 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> > -static int
> > -trace_probe_file_index(struct trace_probe *tp, struct ftrace_event_file
> > *file)
> > +static struct event_file_link *
> > +find_event_file_link(struct trace_probe *tp, struct ftrace_event_file
> > *file)
> > {
> > - struct ftrace_event_file **files;
> > - int i;
> > + struct event_file_link *link;
> >
> > - /*
> > - * Since all tp->files updater is protected by probe_enable_lock,
> > - * we don't need to lock an rcu_read_lock.
> > - */
> > - files = rcu_dereference_raw(tp->files);
> > - if (files) {
> > - for (i = 0; files[i]; i++)
> > - if (files[i] == file)
> > - return i;
> > - }
> > + list_for_each_entry(link, &tp->files, list)
> > + if (link->file == file)
> > + return link;
>
> Shouldn't that be list_for_each_entry_rcu()?
No.
This is the writer which modifies the list. enable/disable_trace_probe
should be serialized wrt each other / itself anyway, otherwise they are
buggy in any case.
Oleg.
--
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/
