On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 09:07:19PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: [...] > I'm fine with it. I know there was some issues about recursion > protection and I said that the function tracer now has its own > protection where you don't need to worry about it. I was hoping that > code would make it into 3.6, but Linus opened the merge window the day > after I posted the final version. Which I figured was too close to the > merge window to push for 3.6 (lots of changes occurred, and I wanted > it vetted in linux-next for a bit). > > Now those changes are queued for 3.7 and are currently in the tip > tree. You can supply your own temporary recursion protection to the > function tracer callback, or wait till my changes make it into Linus's > tree. Great! Btw, the particular recursion issue that I faced back then was triggered by a missing 'notrace' specifier for the ->write() callback in pstore code, i.e. a bug in pstore. Running without any recursion protection is prone to weird lockups/reboots, and probably a good idea to have it on a production system. But recursion during tracing is still an evidence of some other bugs, right? At least the fact that I didn't have it helped me to find a bug. So, does it make sense to make the recursion protection optionally disabled? Maybe as some CONFIG_DEBUG_* option (briefly looking into kernel/trace/Kconfig I didn't find any)? Thanks, Anton. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
