Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1946045Ab3FUUjd (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:39:33 -0400 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.122]:16208 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1945951Ab3FUUjc (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:39:32 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=Du3UCRD+ c=1 sm=0 a=rXTBtCOcEpjy1lPqhTCpEQ==:17 a=mNMOxpOpBa8A:10 a=5wS_mGLe7pQA:10 a=5SG0PmZfjMsA:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=meVymXHHAAAA:8 a=KGjhK52YXX0A:10 a=UM8sEat5ZzYA:10 a=WyBO8MM3-ynC3k5w-WwA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=rXTBtCOcEpjy1lPqhTCpEQ==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Authenticated-User: X-Originating-IP: 74.67.115.198 Message-ID: <1371847171.18733.128.camel@gandalf.local.home> Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/11] tracing: fix disabling of soft disable From: Steven Rostedt To: Masami Hiramatsu Cc: Tom Zanussi , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:39:31 -0400 In-Reply-To: <51C43537.8070300@hitachi.com> References: <51C43537.8070300@hitachi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.4-3 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1389 Lines: 32 On Fri, 2013-06-21 at 20:12 +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > (2013/06/21 3:31), Tom Zanussi wrote: > > The comment on the soft disable 'disable' case of > > __ftrace_event_enable_disable() states that the soft disable bit > > should be cleared in that case, but currently only the soft mode bit > > is actually cleared. > > > > This essentially leaves the standard non-soft-enable enable/disable > > paths as the only way to clear the soft disable flag, but the soft > > disable bit should also be cleared when removing a trigger with '!'. > > Indeed, the soft-disabled flag may remain after the event itself > disabled. However that soft-disabled flag will be cleared when > the event is re-enabled. it seems no bad side-effect. > > Thus I doubt this patch is separately required. I guess this is > required for adding new trigger flag, isn't it? :) Tom, I'm guessing Masami is correct here. It's needed for the trigger work to work, correct? Either way, I probably could add it as a clean up patch regardless. I'll just have to test the hell out of it some more, as the accounting for soft-disable vs real disable was a PITA. -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/