Re: [patch V2 01/29] tracing: Cleanup stack trace code

2019-04-18 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 00:44:17 +0200 (CEST) Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 10:41:20 +0200 > > Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > > @@ -412,23 +404,20 @@ stack_trace_sysctl(struct ctl_table *tab > > > void __user *buffer, size

Re: [patch V2 01/29] tracing: Cleanup stack trace code

2019-04-18 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 10:41:20 +0200 > Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > @@ -412,23 +404,20 @@ stack_trace_sysctl(struct ctl_table *tab > >void __user *buffer, size_t *lenp, > >loff_t *ppos) > > { > > - int ret; > > + int

Re: [patch V2 01/29] tracing: Cleanup stack trace code

2019-04-18 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 10:41:20 +0200 Thomas Gleixner wrote: > @@ -412,23 +404,20 @@ stack_trace_sysctl(struct ctl_table *tab > void __user *buffer, size_t *lenp, > loff_t *ppos) > { > - int ret; > + int ret, was_enabled; One small nit. Could this be:

Re: [patch V2 01/29] tracing: Cleanup stack trace code

2019-04-18 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 17:24:43 -0400 Steven Rostedt wrote: > I believe it was for historical leftovers (there was a time it was > required), and left there for "paranoid" sake. But let me apply the > patch and see if it is really needed. I removed the +1 on the max_entries and set SET_TRACE_ENTRIE

Re: [patch V2 01/29] tracing: Cleanup stack trace code

2019-04-18 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 23:14:45 +0200 (CEST) Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:41:20AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > - Remove the extra array member of stack_dump_trace[]. It's not required > > > as > > > the stack tracer

Re: [patch V2 01/29] tracing: Cleanup stack trace code

2019-04-18 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:41:20AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > - Remove the extra array member of stack_dump_trace[]. It's not required as > > the stack tracer stores at max array size - 1 entries so there is still > > an empty slot. > > What

Re: [patch V2 01/29] tracing: Cleanup stack trace code

2019-04-18 Thread Josh Poimboeuf
On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:41:20AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > - Remove the extra array member of stack_dump_trace[]. It's not required as > the stack tracer stores at max array size - 1 entries so there is still > an empty slot. What is the empty slot used for? -- Josh _

[patch V2 01/29] tracing: Cleanup stack trace code

2019-04-18 Thread Thomas Gleixner
- Remove the extra array member of stack_dump_trace[]. It's not required as the stack tracer stores at max array size - 1 entries so there is still an empty slot. - Make variables which are only used in trace_stack.c static. - Simplify the enable/disable logic. - Rename stack_trace_print() a