> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&treelock, flags);
> > + while (*p) {
> > + parent = *p;
> > + u = rb_entry(parent, struct uprobe, rb_node);
> > + if (u->inode > uprobe->inode)
> > + p = &(*p)->rb_left;
> > + else if (u->inode < uprobe->inode)
> > + p = &(*p)->rb_right;
> > + else {
> > + if (u->offset > uprobe->offset)
> > + p = &(*p)->rb_left;
> > + else if (u->offset < uprobe->offset)
> > + p = &(*p)->rb_right;
> > + else {
> > + atomic_inc(&u->ref);
>
> If the lookup can find a 'dead' entry, then why can't we here?
>
If a new user of a uprobe comes up as when the last registered user was
removing the uprobe, we keep the uprobe entry till the new user
loses interest in that uprobe.
> > + goto unlock_return;
> > + }
> > + }
> > + }
> > + u = NULL;
> > + rb_link_node(&uprobe->rb_node, parent, p);
> > + rb_insert_color(&uprobe->rb_node, &uprobes_tree);
> > + atomic_set(&uprobe->ref, 2);
> > +
> > +unlock_return:
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&treelock, flags);
> > + return u;
> > +}
>
> It would be nice if you could merge the find and 'acquire' thing, the
> lookup is basically the same in both cases.
>
> Also, I'm not quite sure on the name of that last function, its not a
> strict insert and what's the trailing _rb_node about? That lookup isn't
> called find_uprobe_rb_node() either is it?
Since we already have a install_uprobe, register_uprobe, I thought
insert_uprobe_rb_node would give context to that function that it was
only inserting an rb_node but not installing the actual breakpoint.
I am okay to rename it to insert_uprobe().
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>