(Doing my slow clean ups, I find lots of coins under the couch cushions)
On Sat, 2012-06-09 at 12:57 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 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.
>
I just didn't say *which* Monday :-p
Bah, this got lost in a rebase somehow. Grumble, I should push this out
now as urgent.
-- 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
