* Re: [PATCH] tracing/probe: reverse arguments to list_add
@ 2020-05-07 20:50 ` Steven Rostedt
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Steven Rostedt @ 2020-05-07 20:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Julia Lawall
Cc: kernel-janitors, Ingo Molnar, linux-kernel, Nic Volanschi,
Masami Hiramatsu
On Thu, 7 May 2020 21:30:08 +0200
Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@inria.fr> wrote:
> Elsewhere in the file, the function trace_kprobe_has_same_kprobe uses
> a trace_probe_event.probes object as the second argument of
> list_for_each_entry, ie as a list head, while the list_for_each_entry
> iterates over the list fields of the trace_probe structures, making
> them the list elements. So, exchange the arguments on the list_add
> call to put the list head in the second argument.
>
> Since both list_head structures were just initialized, this problem
> did not cause any loss of information.
>
> Fixes: 60d53e2c3b75 ("tracing/probe: Split trace_event related data from trace_probe")
> Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@inria.fr>
Masami,
Can you give a Reviewed-by to this?
-- Steve
>
> ---
> kernel/trace/trace_probe.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_probe.c b/kernel/trace/trace_probe.c
> index ab8b6436d53f..b8a928e925c7 100644
> --- a/kernel/trace/trace_probe.c
> +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_probe.c
> @@ -1006,7 +1006,7 @@ int trace_probe_init(struct trace_probe *tp, const char *event,
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&tp->event->class.fields);
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&tp->event->probes);
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&tp->list);
> - list_add(&tp->event->probes, &tp->list);
> + list_add(&tp->list, &tp->event->probes);
>
> call = trace_probe_event_call(tp);
> call->class = &tp->event->class;
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] tracing/probe: reverse arguments to list_add
2020-05-07 20:50 ` Steven Rostedt
@ 2020-05-07 20:52 ` Steven Rostedt
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Steven Rostedt @ 2020-05-07 20:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Julia Lawall
Cc: kernel-janitors, Ingo Molnar, linux-kernel, Nic Volanschi,
Masami Hiramatsu
On Thu, 7 May 2020 16:50:53 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 May 2020 21:30:08 +0200
> Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@inria.fr> wrote:
>
> > Elsewhere in the file, the function trace_kprobe_has_same_kprobe uses
> > a trace_probe_event.probes object as the second argument of
> > list_for_each_entry, ie as a list head, while the list_for_each_entry
> > iterates over the list fields of the trace_probe structures, making
> > them the list elements. So, exchange the arguments on the list_add
> > call to put the list head in the second argument.
> >
> > Since both list_head structures were just initialized, this problem
> > did not cause any loss of information.
> >
> > Fixes: 60d53e2c3b75 ("tracing/probe: Split trace_event related data from trace_probe")
> > Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@inria.fr>
>
Julia,
As this doesn't cause any harm (as you state, both lists have just been
initialized), it doesn't need to go into this -rc release. Would you agree?
-- Steve
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] tracing/probe: reverse arguments to list_add
@ 2020-05-07 20:52 ` Steven Rostedt
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Steven Rostedt @ 2020-05-07 20:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Julia Lawall
Cc: kernel-janitors, Ingo Molnar, linux-kernel, Nic Volanschi,
Masami Hiramatsu
On Thu, 7 May 2020 16:50:53 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 May 2020 21:30:08 +0200
> Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@inria.fr> wrote:
>
> > Elsewhere in the file, the function trace_kprobe_has_same_kprobe uses
> > a trace_probe_event.probes object as the second argument of
> > list_for_each_entry, ie as a list head, while the list_for_each_entry
> > iterates over the list fields of the trace_probe structures, making
> > them the list elements. So, exchange the arguments on the list_add
> > call to put the list head in the second argument.
> >
> > Since both list_head structures were just initialized, this problem
> > did not cause any loss of information.
> >
> > Fixes: 60d53e2c3b75 ("tracing/probe: Split trace_event related data from trace_probe")
> > Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@inria.fr>
>
Julia,
As this doesn't cause any harm (as you state, both lists have just been
initialized), it doesn't need to go into this -rc release. Would you agree?
-- Steve
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] tracing/probe: reverse arguments to list_add
2020-05-07 20:52 ` Steven Rostedt
@ 2020-05-07 20:53 ` Julia Lawall
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Julia Lawall @ 2020-05-07 20:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Steven Rostedt
Cc: kernel-janitors, Ingo Molnar, linux-kernel, Nic Volanschi,
Masami Hiramatsu
On Thu, 7 May 2020, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 7 May 2020 16:50:53 -0400
> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 7 May 2020 21:30:08 +0200
> > Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@inria.fr> wrote:
> >
> > > Elsewhere in the file, the function trace_kprobe_has_same_kprobe uses
> > > a trace_probe_event.probes object as the second argument of
> > > list_for_each_entry, ie as a list head, while the list_for_each_entry
> > > iterates over the list fields of the trace_probe structures, making
> > > them the list elements. So, exchange the arguments on the list_add
> > > call to put the list head in the second argument.
> > >
> > > Since both list_head structures were just initialized, this problem
> > > did not cause any loss of information.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 60d53e2c3b75 ("tracing/probe: Split trace_event related data from trace_probe")
> > > Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@inria.fr>
> >
>
> Julia,
>
> As this doesn't cause any harm (as you state, both lists have just been
> initialized), it doesn't need to go into this -rc release. Would you agree?
No, no need for -rc.
thanks,
julia
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] tracing/probe: reverse arguments to list_add
@ 2020-05-07 20:53 ` Julia Lawall
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Julia Lawall @ 2020-05-07 20:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Steven Rostedt
Cc: kernel-janitors, Ingo Molnar, linux-kernel, Nic Volanschi,
Masami Hiramatsu
On Thu, 7 May 2020, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 7 May 2020 16:50:53 -0400
> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 7 May 2020 21:30:08 +0200
> > Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@inria.fr> wrote:
> >
> > > Elsewhere in the file, the function trace_kprobe_has_same_kprobe uses
> > > a trace_probe_event.probes object as the second argument of
> > > list_for_each_entry, ie as a list head, while the list_for_each_entry
> > > iterates over the list fields of the trace_probe structures, making
> > > them the list elements. So, exchange the arguments on the list_add
> > > call to put the list head in the second argument.
> > >
> > > Since both list_head structures were just initialized, this problem
> > > did not cause any loss of information.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 60d53e2c3b75 ("tracing/probe: Split trace_event related data from trace_probe")
> > > Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@inria.fr>
> >
>
> Julia,
>
> As this doesn't cause any harm (as you state, both lists have just been
> initialized), it doesn't need to go into this -rc release. Would you agree?
No, no need for -rc.
thanks,
julia
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] tracing/probe: reverse arguments to list_add
2020-05-07 20:50 ` Steven Rostedt
@ 2020-05-07 23:57 ` Masami Hiramatsu
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Masami Hiramatsu @ 2020-05-07 23:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Steven Rostedt
Cc: Julia Lawall, kernel-janitors, Ingo Molnar, linux-kernel,
Nic Volanschi, Masami Hiramatsu
On Thu, 7 May 2020 16:50:53 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 May 2020 21:30:08 +0200
> Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@inria.fr> wrote:
>
> > Elsewhere in the file, the function trace_kprobe_has_same_kprobe uses
> > a trace_probe_event.probes object as the second argument of
> > list_for_each_entry, ie as a list head, while the list_for_each_entry
> > iterates over the list fields of the trace_probe structures, making
> > them the list elements. So, exchange the arguments on the list_add
> > call to put the list head in the second argument.
> >
> > Since both list_head structures were just initialized, this problem
> > did not cause any loss of information.
> >
Oops, good catch!
> > Fixes: 60d53e2c3b75 ("tracing/probe: Split trace_event related data from trace_probe")
> > Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@inria.fr>
>
> Masami,
>
> Can you give a Reviewed-by to this?
Yes, thanks Julia!
Acked-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
Thank you,
>
> -- Steve
>
> >
> > ---
> > kernel/trace/trace_probe.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_probe.c b/kernel/trace/trace_probe.c
> > index ab8b6436d53f..b8a928e925c7 100644
> > --- a/kernel/trace/trace_probe.c
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_probe.c
> > @@ -1006,7 +1006,7 @@ int trace_probe_init(struct trace_probe *tp, const char *event,
> > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&tp->event->class.fields);
> > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&tp->event->probes);
> > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&tp->list);
> > - list_add(&tp->event->probes, &tp->list);
> > + list_add(&tp->list, &tp->event->probes);
> >
> > call = trace_probe_event_call(tp);
> > call->class = &tp->event->class;
>
--
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] tracing/probe: reverse arguments to list_add
@ 2020-05-07 23:57 ` Masami Hiramatsu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Masami Hiramatsu @ 2020-05-07 23:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Steven Rostedt
Cc: Julia Lawall, kernel-janitors, Ingo Molnar, linux-kernel,
Nic Volanschi, Masami Hiramatsu
On Thu, 7 May 2020 16:50:53 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 May 2020 21:30:08 +0200
> Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@inria.fr> wrote:
>
> > Elsewhere in the file, the function trace_kprobe_has_same_kprobe uses
> > a trace_probe_event.probes object as the second argument of
> > list_for_each_entry, ie as a list head, while the list_for_each_entry
> > iterates over the list fields of the trace_probe structures, making
> > them the list elements. So, exchange the arguments on the list_add
> > call to put the list head in the second argument.
> >
> > Since both list_head structures were just initialized, this problem
> > did not cause any loss of information.
> >
Oops, good catch!
> > Fixes: 60d53e2c3b75 ("tracing/probe: Split trace_event related data from trace_probe")
> > Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <Julia.Lawall@inria.fr>
>
> Masami,
>
> Can you give a Reviewed-by to this?
Yes, thanks Julia!
Acked-by: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
Thank you,
>
> -- Steve
>
> >
> > ---
> > kernel/trace/trace_probe.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_probe.c b/kernel/trace/trace_probe.c
> > index ab8b6436d53f..b8a928e925c7 100644
> > --- a/kernel/trace/trace_probe.c
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_probe.c
> > @@ -1006,7 +1006,7 @@ int trace_probe_init(struct trace_probe *tp, const char *event,
> > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&tp->event->class.fields);
> > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&tp->event->probes);
> > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&tp->list);
> > - list_add(&tp->event->probes, &tp->list);
> > + list_add(&tp->list, &tp->event->probes);
> >
> > call = trace_probe_event_call(tp);
> > call->class = &tp->event->class;
>
--
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@kernel.org>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread