On Sat, 2012-06-09 at 19:10 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> There is a typo here where '&' is used instead of '|' and it turns the
> statement into a noop. The original code is equivalent to:
>
> iter->flags &= ~((1 << 2) & (1 << 4));
>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> This is a static checker fix and I'm not super familiar with ftrace.
> Please review carefully.
>
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> index a008663..97da2dc 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/ftrace.c
> @@ -2358,7 +2358,7 @@ static void reset_iter_read(struct ftrace_iterator *iter)
> {
> iter->pos = 0;
> iter->func_pos = 0;
> - iter->flags &= ~(FTRACE_ITER_PRINTALL & FTRACE_ITER_HASH);
> + iter->flags &= ~(FTRACE_ITER_PRINTALL | FTRACE_ITER_HASH);
Thanks! This is a real minor bug, but as it is a simple fix I will
probably queue it up for 3.5 and stable. The reason that it has gone
unnoticed for so long is that this would only show up if you did a lseek
on the function list file. Which is not a common operation to do.
I checked the code and if someone were to do an lseek with these flags
set then they would just get the hash list again (and not the function
list). It's a bug, yes, but not a big one.
I'll queue it up on Monday.
-- Steve
> }
>
> static void *t_start(struct seq_file *m, loff_t *pos)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
