On 06/17, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > > (2013/06/17 2:21), Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > This needs the extra sizeof(list_head) memory for every attached > > ftrace_event_file, hopefully not a problem in this case. > > I think it's no problem, because the number depends on the instances > and it could not be so much. :)
Yes, agreed. > Acked-by: Masami Hiramatsu <[email protected]> Thanks! Given that 2/3 should update the comments (or should be dropped if you do not like it), this ones should be rediffed. And, I just noticed typo in this patch, > > @@ -209,29 +199,18 @@ enable_trace_probe(struct trace_probe *tp, struct > > ftrace_event_file *file) > > ... > > + link->file = file; > > + list_add_rcu(&link->list, &tp->files); I meant list_add_tail_rcu(). I guess this doesn't matter at all, still I'd like to avoid any visible changes in behaviour. Otherwise we could use hlist or even single list, although this doesn't really matter too. I'll preserve your ack. Oleg. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
