From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D01629B218; Fri, 18 Jul 2025 10:40:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1752835224; cv=none; b=VvKjXI2BVsBWJZ780zgpD76QdrR4zygWtxddUHtPCFRviNeh4Bi9AwI/Z8X8hsRZz++690nADntCSrpKYsK+RQ7LXgn9pF9EGitZ9FVtjfRzFODwjqhcFVLBEFcY4zgfo101NOiwTiu7hpdv9U98pnPCbaffDCqV+ITXaDu6g98= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1752835224; c=relaxed/simple; bh=EfctGBqA+tFsqy1MQgf/QW8ed9cdtao3pVhWdvVteAg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=tMRDlLI5B0C43//a6l2WcQv4i47FxQAiDocEBJe+WAm40OrRh2F3aCemhzRWS8gxGrHBJejb+eN97pceBrUoR/6r5TQdPTWeHiB3YNebRm3rsa8H+ACEetE4ylS+nI496Ar7rz7F+WBkURM9qVh0AtXd2o71qKQ7xoYmMstaGHs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=ySj7+q5o; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=ikBbKC7O; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="ySj7+q5o"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="ikBbKC7O" Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2025 12:40:18 +0200 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1752835219; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=PDMVrdweoF/EUIrbyPjq3jBCHKVn3HSx2l+SgvFzmxQ=; b=ySj7+q5ow5+w92BYYOB2ovSU4z0PU2DZ20fHF1fAgSnBLoj7qbPWlWXo8/O/QoKrPaEJdj NjRYz1nat+RUFP6Cj1wDKO9LHzeusqkqmh0jrQMso4PI95dwonefBsDOF20+ni3wShxLgg Z5FdOdjSdj2U8+d5BtfYQUxjYLwLQZRQeGDfMShbnQbkIxpz8v6NWWIWMxIX+RH73/7qhf CMXDUnQtj0KJsCXpeZ+Qrq5bJHyfH+5vUunJUctYSUmm+Cgv10hvpbIDSJHOznRPlCQg/F 4cjwv0qpEwe/KfXwdl8BLtcoKXN+mjt+D9ddaYRGvid7y3D+AuY/zNw2MUXIxw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1752835219; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=PDMVrdweoF/EUIrbyPjq3jBCHKVn3HSx2l+SgvFzmxQ=; b=ikBbKC7OOeVaD8woVi3vZXQH7tbu4GqgUCWyWXVQF05wLLF1e9ujZB1g/AZfF2OLWbUPNZ jY/lWNj6vio0XwBw== From: Nam Cao To: Greg KH Cc: Steven Rostedt , Masami Hiramatsu , Mathieu Desnoyers , Gabriele Monaco , linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] rv: Ensure containers are registered first Message-ID: <20250718104018.lyupqBnR@linutronix.de> References: <20250718091850.2057864-1-namcao@linutronix.de> <2025071835-enjoying-darn-f5d8@gregkh> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2025071835-enjoying-darn-f5d8@gregkh> On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 12:27:14PM +0200, Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 11:18:50AM +0200, Nam Cao wrote: > > If rv_register_monitor() is called with a non-NULL parent pointer (i.e. by > > monitors inside a container), it is expected that the parent (a.k.a > > container) is already registered. > > > > The containers seem to always be registered first. I suspect because of the > > order in Makefile. But nothing guarantees this. > > Yes, linking order matters, and it does guarantee this. We rely on > linking order in the kernel in many places. Hmm, I thought this is just how the linker happens to behave, but not a guarantee. Let's discard this patch then. Nam