On Thu, 14 Apr 2016, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-04-14 at 14:01 +0200, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Apr 2016, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>
> > > static void klp_disable_func(struct klp_func *func)
> > > {
> > > struct klp_ops *ops;
> > > @@ -312,8 +325,14 @@ static void klp_disable_func(struct klp_func *func)
> > > return;
> > >
> > > if (list_is_singular(&ops->func_stack)) {
> > > + unsigned long ftrace_loc;
> >
> > This is a nit, but could you move the definition up to have them all in
> > one place to be consistent with the rest of the code? The same applies to
> > klp_enable_func() below.
>
> Hmm, actually I moved it in there because you pointed out we only needed it
> inside the if:
>
> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/alpine.LNX.2.00.1603151113020.20252@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Thinking about it, we need ftrace_loc only in cases where we call
> ftrace_set_filter_ip() right? So we can move klp_get_ftrace_location()
> call to appropriate if branch both in klp_disable_func() and
> klp_enable_func().
>
> But I guess you meant the function call, not the variable declaration.
Exactly.
> Personally I think it's better this way, as the variable is in scope for the
> shortest possible amount of time, but I can change it if you want me to.
No, it is nothing I would insist on.
Thanks,
Miroslav
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe live-patching" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
