hoi :) On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 11:43:08PM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > +int ltt_module_register(enum ltt_module_function name, void *function, > + struct module *owner) > +{ > + int ret = 0; > + > + /* Protect these operations by disallowing them when tracing is > + * active */ > + if(ltt_traces.num_active_traces) { > + ret = -EBUSY; > + goto end; > + } what would happen otherwise? can it happen that someone enables tracing between this check and the rest of the function? > + new_trace->transport = transport; > + new_trace->ops = &transport->ops; > + > + err = -new_trace->ops->create_dirs(new_trace); ^ typo or intentional? -- Martin Waitz
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH 4/11] LTTng-core 0.5.108 : core
- From: Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH 4/11] LTTng-core 0.5.108 : core
- References:
- [PATCH 4/11] LTTng-core 0.5.108 : core
- From: Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]>
- [PATCH 4/11] LTTng-core 0.5.108 : core
- Prev by Date: Re: [10/12] driver core fixes: sysfs_create_link() retval check in core.c
- Next by Date: Re: Assignment of GDT entries
- Previous by thread: [PATCH 4/11] LTTng-core 0.5.108 : core
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH 4/11] LTTng-core 0.5.108 : core
- Index(es):