From: Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> I do not know why dd9fa555d7bb "tracing/uprobes: Move argument fetching to uprobe_dispatcher()" added the UPROBE_HANDLER_REMOVE, but it looks wrong.
OK, perhaps it makes sense to avoid store_trace_args() if the tracee is nacked by uprobe_perf_filter(). But then we should kill the same code in uprobe_perf_func() and unify the TRACE/PROFILE filtering (we need to do this anyway to mix perf/ftrace). Until then this code actually adds the pessimization because uprobe_perf_filter() will be called twice and return T in likely case. Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/p/20140627170143.ga18...@redhat.com Acked-by: Namhyung Kim <namhy...@kernel.org> Acked-by: Srikar Dronamraju <sri...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org> --- kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c | 6 ------ 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c b/kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c index 08e7970bf3f9..c4cf0abd60ba 100644 --- a/kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c @@ -1208,12 +1208,6 @@ static int uprobe_dispatcher(struct uprobe_consumer *con, struct pt_regs *regs) current->utask->vaddr = (unsigned long) &udd; -#ifdef CONFIG_PERF_EVENTS - if ((tu->tp.flags & TP_FLAG_TRACE) == 0 && - !uprobe_perf_filter(&tu->consumer, 0, current->mm)) - return UPROBE_HANDLER_REMOVE; -#endif - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!uprobe_cpu_buffer)) return 0; -- 2.0.0 -- 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/
