On 2013/7/2 5:10, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 07/01, Oleg Nesterov wrote: >> >> On 06/29, zhangwei(Jovi) wrote: >>> >>> [v3->v4]: >> >> I am wondering how much you will hate me if I suggest to make v5 ;) >> >> But look, imho probe_event_enable() looks a bit more confusing than >> it needs. > > And I am a bit worried this patch removes the is_trace_uprobe_enabled() > check from probe_event_enable()... > > Yes I think it was never needed, afaics TRACE_REG_*_UNREGISTER can't > come without successfull _REGISTER. And the bogus uprobe_unregister() > is harmless in this particular case. > > So I think this is fine, but perhaps the changelog should mention this > "offtopic" change. > > Oleg. > I think it would be better to leave that checking in there now, we can remove that checking in a separated patch if needed.
(I need to make sure the code will not go to there because each ftrace_event_file already have enable/disable flag, also need to look at perf enable/disable case). jovi -- 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/
