On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 12:46:48AM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote:
> > > + 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.
Ah OK. That does make sense then. Thanks!
> 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.
--
steve
--
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>