(2013/07/03 8:02), Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-06-30 at 16:46 +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>> (2013/06/29 3:43), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>> On 06/28, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 16:27 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> Ah, but this conflicts with the other ch
On Sun, 2013-06-30 at 16:46 +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> (2013/06/29 3:43), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 06/28, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 16:27 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Ah, but this conflicts with the other changes I sent. They have
> >>> your acks, and
(2013/06/29 3:43), Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 06/28, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 16:27 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>>>
>>> Ah, but this conflicts with the other changes I sent. They have
>>> your acks, and iiuc Steven is going to apply them.
>>
>> I'll see if I can solve any co
On 06/28, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 16:27 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Ah, but this conflicts with the other changes I sent. They have
> > your acks, and iiuc Steven is going to apply them.
>
> I'll see if I can solve any conflicts. I need to get my -rt versions out
> a
On Fri, 2013-06-28 at 16:27 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 06/28, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> >
> > @@ -232,19 +246,21 @@ enable_trace_probe(struct trace_probe *tp, struct
> > ftrace_event_file *file)
> > rcu_assign_pointer(tp->files, new);
> > tp->flags |= TP_FLAG_TRACE;
>
On 06/28, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
>
> @@ -232,19 +246,21 @@ enable_trace_probe(struct trace_probe *tp, struct
> ftrace_event_file *file)
> rcu_assign_pointer(tp->files, new);
> tp->flags |= TP_FLAG_TRACE;
>
> + ret = __enable_trace_probe(tp);
> +
Make enable_trace_probe to recover (writeback) the old file array
and free new one if we fail to enable the kprobe.
However, this MUST NOT happen at this time except for unknown
bug or changing the implementation of enable_kprobe(), because
usual failure cases (not registered or gone) are already f
7 matches
Mail list logo