Re: [PATCH 1/1] trace: use the more accurate parameter.

[Ingo Molnar]

* Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 07:30:04PM -0500, Wenji Huang wrote:
> > Pass tsk to __update_max_tr instead of current to avoid latent hazard.
> > 
> > Impact: clean up
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Wenji Huang <wenji.huang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  kernel/trace/trace.c |    2 +-
> >  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace.c b/kernel/trace/trace.c
> > index 5b1e9a9..c1592f1 100644
> > --- a/kernel/trace/trace.c
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/trace.c
> > @@ -335,7 +335,7 @@ __update_max_tr(struct trace_array *tr, struct task_struct *tsk, int cpu)
> >  	data->rt_priority = tsk->rt_priority;
> >  
> >  	/* record this tasks comm */
> > -	tracing_record_cmdline(current);
> > +	tracing_record_cmdline(tsk);
> >  }
> 
> 
> Indeed. At this stage, tsk is the next task in the middle of a context
> switch. So I guess current is right, but this is more proper to use tsk.

Rename it to 'next' then please.

	Ingo
--
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/