(2015/04/22 16:33), Namhyung Kim wrote:
> Hi Masami,
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 08:42:00PM +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>> @@ -2760,14 +2762,17 @@ int del_perf_probe_events(struct strlist *dellist)
>>
>> pr_debug("Group: %s, Event: %s\n", group, event);
>>
>> + ret = ret2 = -ENOENT;
>> if (namelist)
>> ret = del_trace_probe_event(kfd, buf, namelist);
>>
>> - if (unamelist && ret != 0)
>> - ret = del_trace_probe_event(ufd, buf, unamelist);
>> + if (unamelist)
>> + ret2 = del_trace_probe_event(ufd, buf, unamelist);
>>
>> - if (ret != 0)
>> - pr_info("Info: Event \"%s\" does not exist.\n", buf);
>> + /* Since we can remove probes which already removed, no error
>> */
>> + if (ret != 0 && ret2 != 0)
>> + pr_debug("Event \"%s\" does not exist.\n", buf);
>
> I think it'd be better checking 'ret == -ENOENT && ret2 == -ENOENT'
> here since del_trace_probe_event() can return other error codes.
Indeed. BTW, this code is replaced by patch 5/8, so I'll update it too.
Thanks!
--
Masami HIRAMATSU
Linux Technology Research Center, System Productivity Research Dept.
Center for Technology Innovation - Systems Engineering
Hitachi, Ltd., Research & Development Group
E-mail: [email protected]
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
