* Steven Rostedt (rost...@goodmis.org) wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-04-15 at 11:13 +0900, kpark3...@gmail.com wrote:
> > From: Sahara <keun-o.p...@windriver.com>
> >
> > Somehow tracepoint_entry_add_probe function allows a null probe function.
> > And, this may lead to unexpected result since the number of probe
> > functions in an entry can be counted by checking whether probe is null
> > or not in for-loop.
> > This patch prevents the null probe from being added.
> > In tracepoint_entry_remove_probe function, checking probe parameter
> > within for-loop is moved out for code efficiency leaving the null probe
> > feature which removes all probe functions in the entry.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sahara <keun-o.p...@windriver.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org>
> > Reviewed-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com>
>
> BTW, do not add tags that were not given to you. "Reviewed-by" has a
> meaning, more than just someone that reviewed your patch. It means that
> they not only reviewed your patch but couldn't find anything wrong with
> it. As both Mathieu and I had comments, that does not deserve a
> "Reviewed-by" tag.
>
> I'm not even sure that Mathieu gave an "Acked-by". I thought he did, but
> I can't seem to find it. Mathieu?
I don't recall, but all my comments were addressed. In order to clear
any confusion:
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com>
Acked-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com>
Thanks,
Mathieu
>
> Anyway, I'll start testing this patch as it seems fine with me (although
> I still wouldn't give a Reviewed-by tag).
>
> Thanks,
>
> -- Steve
>
> > ---
> > kernel/tracepoint.c | 21 +++++++++++++--------
> > 1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/tracepoint.c b/kernel/tracepoint.c
> > index 0c05a45..29f2654 100644
> > --- a/kernel/tracepoint.c
> > +++ b/kernel/tracepoint.c
> > @@ -112,7 +112,8 @@ tracepoint_entry_add_probe(struct tracepoint_entry
> > *entry,
> > int nr_probes = 0;
> > struct tracepoint_func *old, *new;
> >
> > - WARN_ON(!probe);
> > + if (WARN_ON(!probe))
> > + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> >
> > debug_print_probes(entry);
> > old = entry->funcs;
> > @@ -152,13 +153,18 @@ tracepoint_entry_remove_probe(struct tracepoint_entry
> > *entry,
> >
> > debug_print_probes(entry);
> > /* (N -> M), (N > 1, M >= 0) probes */
> > - for (nr_probes = 0; old[nr_probes].func; nr_probes++) {
> > - if (!probe ||
> > - (old[nr_probes].func == probe &&
> > - old[nr_probes].data == data))
> > - nr_del++;
> > + if (probe) {
> > + for (nr_probes = 0; old[nr_probes].func; nr_probes++) {
> > + if (old[nr_probes].func == probe &&
> > + old[nr_probes].data == data)
> > + nr_del++;
> > + }
> > }
> >
> > + /*
> > + * If probe is NULL, then nr_probes = nr_del = 0, and then the
> > + * entire entry will be removed.
> > + */
> > if (nr_probes - nr_del == 0) {
> > /* N -> 0, (N > 1) */
> > entry->funcs = NULL;
> > @@ -173,8 +179,7 @@ tracepoint_entry_remove_probe(struct tracepoint_entry
> > *entry,
> > if (new == NULL)
> > return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> > for (i = 0; old[i].func; i++)
> > - if (probe &&
> > - (old[i].func != probe || old[i].data != data))
> > + if (old[i].func != probe || old[i].data != data)
> > new[j++] = old[i];
> > new[nr_probes - nr_del].func = NULL;
> > entry->refcount = nr_probes - nr_del;
>
>
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
--
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/
