On 10/17, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 22:44:56 -0300 > "Geyslan G. Bem" <geys...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > and fix the possible 'dir' > > assignment after freeing it.
This should be safe afaics, nobody will use it anyway. Even subsystem_release() won't be called if .open() fails. But I agree this doesn't look good. > I'm thinking of just nuking the tracing_open_generic() here. The only > thing it does here is the tracing_disabled check. The assignment of > inode->i_private to filp->private_data is pointless The same for ftrace_enable_fops() and ftrace_event_filter_fops() at least. The users of event_file_data() do not use ->private_data. OTOH, say, trace_format_open() doesn't check tracing_disabled, so > We could add a tracing_is_disabled() function to test instead. perhaps it can have more callers. 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/
