[PATCH] sputrace : use marker_synchronize_unregister()

We need a marker_synchronize_unregister() before the end of exit() to make sure
every probe callers have exited the non preemptible section and thus are not
executing the probe code anymore.

Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <redacted>
CC: Ingo Molnar <redacted>
CC: Jeremy Kerr <jk@ozlabs.org>
CC: <redacted>
CC: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
---
 arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spufs/sputrace.c |    1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

Index: linux-2.6-lttng/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spufs/sputrace.c
===================================================================

--- linux-2.6-lttng.orig/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spufs/sputrace.c	2008-07-31 09:34:58.000000000 -0400
+++ linux-2.6-lttng/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/spufs/sputrace.c	2008-07-31 09:35:15.000000000 -0400

@@ -233,6 +233,7 @@ static void __exit sputrace_exit(void)
 
 	remove_proc_entry("sputrace", NULL);
 	kfree(sputrace_log);
+	marker_synchronize_unregister();
 }
 
 module_init(sputrace_init);

-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
OpenPGP key fingerprint: 8CD5 52C3 8E3C 4140 715F  BA06 3F25 A8FE 3BAE 9A68

On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:11:47AM -0400, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:

We need a marker_synchronize_unregister() before the end of exit() to make sure
every probe callers have exited the non preemptible section and thus are not
executing the probe code anymore.

Looks good.

Mathieu,

We need a marker_synchronize_unregister() before the end of exit() to
make sure every probe callers have exited the non preemptible section
and thus are not executing the probe code anymore.

Looks good - added to spufs.git.

Cheers,


Jeremy

* Jeremy Kerr [off-list ref] wrote:

Mathieu,

quoted

We need a marker_synchronize_unregister() before the end of exit() to
make sure every probe callers have exited the non preemptible section
and thus are not executing the probe code anymore.

Looks good - added to spufs.git.

that wont work very well as the patch relies on the new 
marker_synchronize_unregister() facility.

	Ingo

Ingo,

that wont work very well as the patch relies on the new
marker_synchronize_unregister() facility.

d'oh, right you are. Should I leave this in your hands to merge?

Cheers,


Jeremy

* Jeremy Kerr [off-list ref] wrote:

Ingo,

quoted

that wont work very well as the patch relies on the new
marker_synchronize_unregister() facility.

d'oh, right you are. Should I leave this in your hands to merge?

would be nice if you could give your Acked-by for the sputrace bits, 
then we can merge it. It's a oneliner so it shouldnt cause merging 
trouble in linux-next.

	Ingo

Ingo,

would be nice if you could give your Acked-by for the sputrace bits,
then we can merge it. It's a oneliner so it shouldnt cause merging
trouble in linux-next.

Sure!

Acked-by: Jeremy Kerr <jk@ozlabs.org>


Jeremy