On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 14:01 -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > * Steven Rostedt (rost...@goodmis.org) wrote: > > On Wed, 2013-03-20 at 12:18 +0900, kpark3...@gmail.com wrote: > > > From: Sahara <keun-o.p...@windriver.com> > > > > > > Somehow tracepoint_entry_add/remove_probe functions allow a null probe > > > function. > > > > You actually hit this in practice, or is this just something that you > > observe from code review? > > > > > Especially on getting a null probe in remove function, it seems > > > to be used to remove all probe functions in the entry. > > > > Hmm, that actually sounds like a feature. > > Yep. It's been a long time since I wrote this code, but the removal code > seems to use NULL probe pointer to remove all probes for a given > tracepoint. > > I'd be tempted to just validate non-NULL probe within > tracepoint_entry_add_probe() and let other sites as is, just in case > anyone would be using this feature. > > I cannot say that I have personally used this "remove all" feature much > though. >
I agree. I don't see anything wrong in leaving the null probe feature in the removal code. But updating the add code looks like a proper change. -- Steve -- 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/
