On Fri, 2013-06-21 at 20:12 +0900, Masami Hiramatsu wrote: > (2013/06/21 3:31), Tom Zanussi wrote: > > The comment on the soft disable 'disable' case of > > __ftrace_event_enable_disable() states that the soft disable bit > > should be cleared in that case, but currently only the soft mode bit > > is actually cleared. > > > > This essentially leaves the standard non-soft-enable enable/disable > > paths as the only way to clear the soft disable flag, but the soft > > disable bit should also be cleared when removing a trigger with '!'. > > Indeed, the soft-disabled flag may remain after the event itself > disabled. However that soft-disabled flag will be cleared when > the event is re-enabled. it seems no bad side-effect. > > Thus I doubt this patch is separately required. I guess this is > required for adding new trigger flag, isn't it? :)
Tom, I'm guessing Masami is correct here. It's needed for the trigger work to work, correct? Either way, I probably could add it as a clean up patch regardless. I'll just have to test the hell out of it some more, as the accounting for soft-disable vs real disable was a PITA. -- Steve -- 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/
