lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Nov]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: ??
On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 11:38:45 +0800
Chunyan Zhang <zhang.chunyan@linaro.org> wrote:


What happened to the subject?

> >>> +static void
> >>> +trace_process_export(struct trace_export *export,
> >>> + struct ring_buffer_event *event)
> >>> +{
> >>> + struct trace_entry *entry;
> >>> + unsigned int size = 0;
> >>> +
> >>> + entry = ring_buffer_event_data(event);
> >>> +
> >>> + size = ring_buffer_event_length(event);
> >>> +
> >>> + if (export->write)
> >>> + export->write((char *)entry, size);
> >>
> >> Is there ever going to be a time where export->write wont be set?
> >
> > There hasn't been since only one trace_export (i.e. stm_ftrace) was
> > added in this patch-set , I just wanted to make sure the write() has
> > been set before registering trace_export like what I added in 2/3 of
> > this series.
> >
> >>
> >> And if there is, this can be racy. As in
> >>
> >>
> >> CPU 0: CPU 1:
> >> ------ ------
> >> if (export->write)
> >>
> >> export->write = NULL;
> >
> > Is there going to be this kind of use case? Why some one needs to
> > change export->write() rather than register a new trace_export?
> >
> > I probably haven't understood your point thoroughly, please correct me
> > if my guess was wrong.
> >
>
> Any further comments? :)

I don't remember which patch series this goes to, so right now, no.

-- Steve

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-11-11 17:02    [W:0.055 / U:1.496 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site