On Thu, 2013-07-04 at 00:18 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 07/03, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > No, I would avoid any changes to the debugfs infrastructure. > > YEs, agreed. > > > OK, what about the below patch, followed by an updated version of your > > patch. I'll send that as a reply to this one. > > Steven, you do understand that I can't review the changes in this area.
I have more faith in you than you do ;-) > > But at first glance, _I think_ this should work. And this is much simpler, > ->open() blocks trace_remove_event_call() (you added TRACE_EVENT_FL_REF_MASK > check into the next patch). Yep. > > Which tree this patch is based on? I have pulled linux-trace.git#for-next > and I do not see tracing_open_generic_file/etc in trace_events.c. Ug! Thanks! I posted my [for-next] series but never pushed it to my git tree. I just pushed it now. I'm glad you told me this because I was under the assumption that the code was already in my kernel.org repo, and I would have pushed to Linus thinking it was already in linux-next and would have been embarrassed if something went wrong. > > I do not understand what protects call->flags, I guess there is another > lock which I do not see in my tree? Those flags should only be set under the event_mutex lock. But I see I didn't do that :-) Yeah, I need to add locks for that. See, you can review my patch and provide valuable feedback! -- 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/
