On 10/19, Geyslan Gregório Bem wrote:
>
> 2013/10/19 Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com>:
> > On 10/17, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
>
> Aren't "ftrace_enable_fops" and "ftrace_event_filter_fops" structures?
I meant, their ->open() methods.
> About event_file_data() I think that the callers uses the
> private_data. So, we have to analyze better.
No, event_file_data() uses ->i_private, filp->private_data is not used.
And it can't be used, it can point to the already destroyed/freed data.
but, as for seq_open() users,
> static int trace_format_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
> {
> struct seq_file *m;
> int ret;
>
> ret = seq_open(file, &trace_format_seq_ops);
> if (ret < 0)
> return ret;
>
> m = file->private_data;
> m->private = file;
>
> return 0;
> }
>
> I really got confused here. The 'm' assignments are, to me, pointless.
I confused too... Why do you think it is pointless?
Just in case, not that after seq_open() ->private_data points to seq_file
but it is still "void *". And in this case ->private_data has nothing to
do with ->private_data set by tracing_open_generic().
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/
