From: Oleg Nesterov
The usage of uprobe_buffer_enable() added by dcad1a20 is very wrong,
1. uprobe_buffer_enable() and uprobe_buffer_disable() are not balanced,
_enable() should be called only if !enabled.
2. If uprobe_buffer_enable() fails probe_event_enable() should clear
tp.flags and
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 19:58:36 +0200
Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> But I won't insist, this is subjective. So please let me know if you still
> think it would be better to add this change, I'll send v2.
Don't bother. I didn't look at the patch in context to make that reply.
I think your original patch
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 19:50:25 +0200
Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Well, I do not really mind. But to me it looks more consistent this way,
> if-something-fail-goto-err_label.
>
> IOW, I think that the code should either not use err-labels, or always
> use them like above.
Ah I missed the other error
On 06/30, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 22:34:09 +0530
> Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
>
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + goto err_buffer;
> > >
> > > + return 0;
> > > +
> > > + err_buffer:
> > > + uprobe_buffer_disable();
> > > +
> >
> > How about avoiding err_buffer label?
> > +
On 06/30, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
>
> > The usage of uprobe_buffer_enable() added by dcad1a20 is very wrong,
> >
> > 1. uprobe_buffer_enable() and uprobe_buffer_disable() are not balanced,
> >_enable() should be called only if !enabled.
> >
> > 2. If uprobe_buffer_enable() fails
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 22:34:09 +0530
Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> Acked-by: Srikar Dronamraju
> (one nit .. )
>
> > + ret = uprobe_buffer_enable();
> > + if (ret)
> > + goto err_flags;
> > +
> > tu->consumer.filter = filter;
> > ret = uprobe_register(tu->inode, tu->offset,
> The usage of uprobe_buffer_enable() added by dcad1a20 is very wrong,
>
> 1. uprobe_buffer_enable() and uprobe_buffer_disable() are not balanced,
>_enable() should be called only if !enabled.
>
> 2. If uprobe_buffer_enable() fails probe_event_enable() should clear
>tp.flags and free
(2014/06/28 2:01), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> The usage of uprobe_buffer_enable() added by dcad1a20 is very wrong,
>
> 1. uprobe_buffer_enable() and uprobe_buffer_disable() are not balanced,
>_enable() should be called only if !enabled.
>
> 2. If uprobe_buffer_enable() fails probe_event_enable()
On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 19:01:46 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> The usage of uprobe_buffer_enable() added by dcad1a20 is very wrong,
>
> 1. uprobe_buffer_enable() and uprobe_buffer_disable() are not balanced,
>_enable() should be called only if !enabled.
>
> 2. If uprobe_buffer_enable() fails
On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 19:01:46 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
The usage of uprobe_buffer_enable() added by dcad1a20 is very wrong,
1. uprobe_buffer_enable() and uprobe_buffer_disable() are not balanced,
_enable() should be called only if !enabled.
2. If uprobe_buffer_enable() fails
(2014/06/28 2:01), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
The usage of uprobe_buffer_enable() added by dcad1a20 is very wrong,
1. uprobe_buffer_enable() and uprobe_buffer_disable() are not balanced,
_enable() should be called only if !enabled.
2. If uprobe_buffer_enable() fails probe_event_enable()
The usage of uprobe_buffer_enable() added by dcad1a20 is very wrong,
1. uprobe_buffer_enable() and uprobe_buffer_disable() are not balanced,
_enable() should be called only if !enabled.
2. If uprobe_buffer_enable() fails probe_event_enable() should clear
tp.flags and free
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 22:34:09 +0530
Srikar Dronamraju sri...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
Acked-by: Srikar Dronamraju sri...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
(one nit .. )
+ ret = uprobe_buffer_enable();
+ if (ret)
+ goto err_flags;
+
tu-consumer.filter = filter;
ret =
On 06/30, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
The usage of uprobe_buffer_enable() added by dcad1a20 is very wrong,
1. uprobe_buffer_enable() and uprobe_buffer_disable() are not balanced,
_enable() should be called only if !enabled.
2. If uprobe_buffer_enable() fails probe_event_enable()
On 06/30, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 22:34:09 +0530
Srikar Dronamraju sri...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
+ if (ret)
+ goto err_buffer;
+ return 0;
+
+ err_buffer:
+ uprobe_buffer_disable();
+
How about avoiding err_buffer label?
+ if (!ret)
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 19:50:25 +0200
Oleg Nesterov o...@redhat.com wrote:
Well, I do not really mind. But to me it looks more consistent this way,
if-something-fail-goto-err_label.
IOW, I think that the code should either not use err-labels, or always
use them like above.
Ah I missed the
On Mon, 30 Jun 2014 19:58:36 +0200
Oleg Nesterov o...@redhat.com wrote:
But I won't insist, this is subjective. So please let me know if you still
think it would be better to add this change, I'll send v2.
Don't bother. I didn't look at the patch in context to make that reply.
I think your
From: Oleg Nesterov o...@redhat.com
The usage of uprobe_buffer_enable() added by dcad1a20 is very wrong,
1. uprobe_buffer_enable() and uprobe_buffer_disable() are not balanced,
_enable() should be called only if !enabled.
2. If uprobe_buffer_enable() fails probe_event_enable() should clear
The usage of uprobe_buffer_enable() added by dcad1a20 is very wrong,
1. uprobe_buffer_enable() and uprobe_buffer_disable() are not balanced,
_enable() should be called only if !enabled.
2. If uprobe_buffer_enable() fails probe_event_enable() should clear
tp.flags and free event_file_link.
The usage of uprobe_buffer_enable() added by dcad1a20 is very wrong,
1. uprobe_buffer_enable() and uprobe_buffer_disable() are not balanced,
_enable() should be called only if !enabled.
2. If uprobe_buffer_enable() fails probe_event_enable() should clear
tp.flags and free event_file_link.
20 matches
Mail list logo
