Re: [PATCH v2 2.6.38-rc8-tip 17/20] 17: uprobes: filter chain

[Stephen Wilson]

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 from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/