Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933600Ab3GDATl (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Jul 2013 20:19:41 -0400 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.122]:8201 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933570Ab3GDATi (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Jul 2013 20:19:38 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=Tr1kdUrh c=1 sm=0 a=Sro2XwOs0tJUSHxCKfOySw==:17 a=Drc5e87SC40A:10 a=Ys9SgDZjGkgA:10 a=5SG0PmZfjMsA:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=meVymXHHAAAA:8 a=KGjhK52YXX0A:10 a=_7JHcU0X-nEA:10 a=VwQbUJbxAAAA:8 a=DgIrJZqeKAH2_VcHJvIA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=U62fhAwekXMA:10 a=Sro2XwOs0tJUSHxCKfOySw==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Authenticated-User: X-Originating-IP: 67.255.60.225 Message-ID: <1372897175.22688.135.camel@gandalf.local.home> Subject: Re: PATCH? trace_remove_event_call() should fail if call is active From: Steven Rostedt To: Oleg Nesterov Cc: Masami Hiramatsu , "zhangwei(Jovi)" , Jiri Olsa , Peter Zijlstra , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Srikar Dronamraju , Frederic Weisbecker , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 20:19:35 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20130703221847.GA15566@redhat.com> References: <20130702193425.GA8813@redhat.com> <1372799087.22688.58.camel@gandalf.local.home> <20130702213808.GA24757@redhat.com> <20130702222359.GA27629@redhat.com> <51D38F8D.3010708@hitachi.com> <20130703172029.GA14309@redhat.com> <20130703175420.GA25668@redhat.com> <1372874547.22688.111.camel@gandalf.local.home> <20130703191748.GA2884@redhat.com> <1372883643.22688.118.camel@gandalf.local.home> <20130703221847.GA15566@redhat.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: 1670 Lines: 48 On Thu, 2013-07-04 at 00:18 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > On 07/03, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > No, I would avoid any changes to the debugfs infrastructure. > > YEs, agreed. > > > OK, what about the below patch, followed by an updated version of your > > patch. I'll send that as a reply to this one. > > Steven, you do understand that I can't review the changes in this area. I have more faith in you than you do ;-) > > But at first glance, _I think_ this should work. And this is much simpler, > ->open() blocks trace_remove_event_call() (you added TRACE_EVENT_FL_REF_MASK > check into the next patch). Yep. > > Which tree this patch is based on? I have pulled linux-trace.git#for-next > and I do not see tracing_open_generic_file/etc in trace_events.c. Ug! Thanks! I posted my [for-next] series but never pushed it to my git tree. I just pushed it now. I'm glad you told me this because I was under the assumption that the code was already in my kernel.org repo, and I would have pushed to Linus thinking it was already in linux-next and would have been embarrassed if something went wrong. > > I do not understand what protects call->flags, I guess there is another > lock which I do not see in my tree? Those flags should only be set under the event_mutex lock. But I see I didn't do that :-) Yeah, I need to add locks for that. See, you can review my patch and provide valuable feedback! -- 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/