A comment I just have is a cosmetic one.
(2013/06/29 16:51), zhangwei(Jovi) wrote:
> @@ -605,33 +629,87 @@ typedef bool (*filter_func_t)(struct uprobe_consumer
> *self,
> struct mm_struct *mm);
>
> static int
> -probe_event_enable(struct trace_uprobe *tu, int flag, filter_func_t filter)
> +probe_event_enable(struct trace_uprobe *tu, struct ftrace_event_file *file,
> + filter_func_t filter)
> {
> + bool enabled = is_trace_uprobe_enabled(tu);
> + struct event_file_link *link;
> int ret = 0;
>
> - if (is_trace_uprobe_enabled(tu))
> - return -EINTR;
> + if (file) {
> + if (tu->flags & TP_FLAG_PROFILE)
> + return -EINTR;
> +
> + link = kmalloc(sizeof(*link), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!link)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + link->file = file;
> + list_add_tail_rcu(&link->list, &tu->files);
> +
> + tu->flags |= TP_FLAG_TRACE;
> + } else {
> + if (tu->flags & TP_FLAG_TRACE)
> + return -EINTR;
> +
> + tu->flags |= TP_FLAG_PROFILE;
> + }
>
> WARN_ON(!uprobe_filter_is_empty(&tu->filter));
>
> - tu->flags |= flag;
> - tu->consumer.filter = filter;
> - ret = uprobe_register(tu->inode, tu->offset, &tu->consumer);
> - if (ret)
> - tu->flags &= ~flag;
> + /* we cannot call uprobe_register twice for same tu */
> + if (!enabled) {
> + tu->consumer.filter = filter;
> + ret = uprobe_register(tu->inode, tu->offset, &tu->consumer);
> + }
> +
> + if (ret) {
Here, since the ret is only changed by uprobe_register, this block
would better be included in the above block. :)
> + if (file) {
> + list_del_rcu(&link->list);
> + kfree(link);
> + tu->flags &= ~TP_FLAG_TRACE;
> + } else
> + tu->flags &= ~TP_FLAG_PROFILE;
> + }
>
> return ret;
> }
Thank you,
--
Masami HIRAMATSU
IT Management Research Dept. Linux Technology Center
Hitachi, Ltd., Yokohama Research Laboratory
E-mail: [email protected]
--
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/
