Re: [RFC] [PATCH] To list all active probes in the system

[Andrew Morton]

On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 10:55:23 +0530
Srinivasa Ds <srinivasa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> --- linux-2.6.20.orig/fs/debugfs/inode.c
> +++ linux-2.6.20/fs/debugfs/inode.c
> @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
>  #include <linux/namei.h>
>  #include <linux/debugfs.h>
>  #include <linux/fsnotify.h>
> +#include <linux/kprobes.h>
>  
>  #define DEBUGFS_MAGIC	0x64626720
>  
> @@ -320,6 +321,7 @@ static int __init debugfs_init(void)
>  	retval = register_filesystem(&debug_fs_type);
>  	if (retval)
>  		subsystem_unregister(&debug_subsys);
> +	debugfs_kprobe_init();
>  	return retval;
>  }

eww.  Didn't it feel bad when you did that?


As this module has a dependency upon debugfs, I'd have thought the
approproate way of expressing that would be to run debugfs_kprobe_init()
at a lower initcall priority than debugfs_init()

> +void __kprobes debugfs_kprobe_init(void)
> +{
> +	struct dentry *dir;
> +	
> +	dir = debugfs_create_dir("kprobes", NULL);
> +	if (dir == NULL)
> +		return;
> +	debugfs_create_file("list", 0444, dir , 0 , &proc_kprobes_operations);
> +}
> +
>  __initcall(init_kprobes);

debugfs_init() already runs at core_initcall level, presumably so that
debugfs clients can use plain old module_init().

> 
> +static inline void debugfs_kprobe_init(void)
> +{
> +}

In which case we don't need this.	
-
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/