On 01/09, Srikar Dronamraju wrote: > > * Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> [2013-01-08 20:00:18]: > > > They shouldn't in any case. To remind, we can optimize filter_chain() > > for example and avoid the potentially costly uc->filter() call. Say, > > we can detect/remember the fact that at least one consumre has > > ->filter == NULL. > > > > OTOH, UPROBE_HANDLER_REMOVE is not really pre-filtering (although I think > > it helps to make the things better). It is more like uprobe_unapply_mm() > > which (perhaps) we need as well. But doing uprobe_unapply_mm() from > > uc->handler is a) deadlockable and b) not optimal because it has to > > consult other consumers. > > > > Anyway I agree, the folks writing handlers should understand what do they > > do ;) and this needs some documentation. > > If we document explicitly that filter wont be called, then this should > be okay.
OK. Can I take this as your ACK? Oleg. -- 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/
