lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Mar]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 2.6.38-rc8-tip 17/20] 17: uprobes: filter chain
* Stephen Wilson <wilsons@start.ca> [2011-03-15 15:49:14]:

>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 07:07:22PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> >
> > Loops through the filters callbacks of currently registered
> > consumers to see if any consumer is interested in tracing this task.
>
> Should this be part of the series? It is not currently used.
>
> > /* Acquires uprobe->consumer_rwsem */
> > +static bool filter_chain(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct task_struct *t)
> > +{
> > + struct uprobe_consumer *consumer;
> > + bool ret = false;
> > +
> > + down_read(&uprobe->consumer_rwsem);
> > + for (consumer = uprobe->consumers; consumer;
> > + consumer = consumer->next) {
> > + if (!consumer->filter || consumer->filter(consumer, t)) {
>
> The implementation does not seem to match the changelog description.
> Should this not be:
>
> if (consumer->filter && consumer->filter(consumer, t))
>
> ?

filter is optional; if filter is present, then it means that the
tracer is interested in a specific set of processes that maps this
inode. If there is no filter; it means that it is interested in all
processes that map this filter.

filter_chain() should return true if any consumer is interested in
tracing this task.
if there is a consumer who hasnt defined a filter then we dont need to loop thro remaining consumers.

Hence

if (!consumer->filter || consumer->filter(consumer, t)) {

seems better suited to me.

--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-03-18 20:27    [W:0.079 / U:2.316 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site