Subject: Re: Possible bug in ftrace_profile_enable_event
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
       Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <19140.13582.223629.56214@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
References: <19140.13582.223629.56214@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 02:20:35 -0400
Message-Id: <1254378035.2194.37.camel@frodo>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 851
Lines: 25

On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 14:50 +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:

> So we only allocate trace_profile_buf and trace_profile_buf_nmi if
> total_profile_count was zero on entry, but if we get an error returned
> from event->profile_enable(), we free them both unconditionally,
> regardless of the value of total_profile_count.  That seems wrong.  Is
> there a subtle reason why that is the right thing to do?
> 
> (Also, is kfree the appropriate counterpart to alloc_percpu?)

Hi Paul,

I think you have a valid point. Frederic and I are here in Dresden (last
day). I'll make sure he sees this.

Thanks,

-- 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/