On 04/08, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Fri, 2013-03-29 at 19:15 +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > --- a/kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c > > +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c > > @@ -492,17 +492,13 @@ static int uprobe_trace_func(struct trace_uprobe *tu, > > struct pt_regs *regs) > > struct ring_buffer_event *event; > > struct ring_buffer *buffer; > > u8 *data; > > - int size, i, pc; > > - unsigned long irq_flags; > > + int size, i; > > struct ftrace_event_call *call = &tu->call; > > > > - local_save_flags(irq_flags); > > - pc = preempt_count(); > > How about instead, just change the above two and have: > > /* uprobes are never called with preemption disabled */ > pc = 0; > irq_flags = 0; > > and leave the rest the same. This will help in future reviewers of the > code to not have to look up what that "0, 0" is for, and then wonder if > it should be that way. gcc should optimize it to be exactly the same as > this patch.
Hmm, just to remind which arguments trace_current_buffer_*() has? Personally I disagree. And, for example, ftrace_syscall_enter/exit just use 0,0 for the same reason. So please tell me if you really want the dummy variables/arguments, in this case I'll change this code even if I do not like it. 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/
