Oleg,
Is all the races that we are aware of between accessing event files and
deleting events covered by these patches? I think I have them all.
Was there any patches that I missed, as there were a lot of threads
and lots of patches sent out, but not all were considered final.
I think I got the main ones that we decided on, but I'm not 100% sure as
my INBOX is overrun by too many activities. It may be a few months before
I go through them all.
I haven't pushed this to my for-next branch as I'm waiting for some feedback
from others in my queue. But I did push it to my ftrace/urgent branch
if you want to look at what will be going there. That branch may rebase
but I wanted to get these patches tested by Fengguang before sending
them to next. And I try not to rebase my for-next branch.
Thanks,
-- Steve
Oleg Nesterov (2):
debugfs: debugfs_remove_recursive() must not rely on list_empty(d_subdirs)
tracing: trace_remove_event_call() should fail if call/file is in use
Steven Rostedt (Red Hat) (3):
tracing: Add comment to describe special break case in
probe_remove_event_call()
tracing/kprobes: Fail to unregister if probe event files are in use
tracing/uprobes: Fail to unregister if probe event files are in use
----
fs/debugfs/inode.c | 69 ++++++++++++++----------------------------
include/linux/ftrace_event.h | 2 +-
kernel/trace/trace_events.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++--
kernel/trace/trace_kprobe.c | 21 +++++++++----
kernel/trace/trace_uprobe.c | 51 +++++++++++++++++++++++--------
5 files changed, 115 insertions(+), 69 deletions(-)
--
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/
