2013/10/19 Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com>:
> 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.
I see.
>
>> 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.
Ok. I got it.
>
> 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().
>
My bad. I realized it now.
> Oleg.
>
Let's wait Steve's reply about further use of tracing_is_disabled().
Regards.
--Geyslan
--
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/
