* Stephen Wilson <wilsons@xxxxxxxx> [2011-03-15 15:49:14]:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 07:07:22PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> >
> > Loops through the filters callbacks of currently registered
> > consumers to see if any consumer is interested in tracing this task.
>
> Should this be part of the series? It is not currently used.
>
> > /* Acquires uprobe->consumer_rwsem */
> > +static bool filter_chain(struct uprobe *uprobe, struct task_struct *t)
> > +{
> > + struct uprobe_consumer *consumer;
> > + bool ret = false;
> > +
> > + down_read(&uprobe->consumer_rwsem);
> > + for (consumer = uprobe->consumers; consumer;
> > + consumer = consumer->next) {
> > + if (!consumer->filter || consumer->filter(consumer, t)) {
>
> The implementation does not seem to match the changelog description.
> Should this not be:
>
> if (consumer->filter && consumer->filter(consumer, t))
>
> ?
filter is optional; if filter is present, then it means that the
tracer is interested in a specific set of processes that maps this
inode. If there is no filter; it means that it is interested in all
processes that map this filter.
filter_chain() should return true if any consumer is interested in
tracing this task.
if there is a consumer who hasnt defined a filter then we dont need to loop thro remaining consumers.
Hence
if (!consumer->filter || consumer->filter(consumer, t)) {
seems better suited to me.
--
Thanks and Regards
Srikar
--
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 internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>