[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <57B1E28C.10806@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 11:41:00 -0400
From: David Long <dave.long@...aro.org>
To: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Cc: sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, daniel.thompson@...aro.org,
Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ananth@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Anil S Keshavamurthy <anil.s.keshavamurthy@...el.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, catalin.marinas@....com,
marc.zyngier@....com, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: kprobes: Document jprobes stack copying
limitations
On 08/15/2016 11:32 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 10:49:36 -0400
> David Long <dave.long@...aro.org> wrote:
>
>> On 08/15/2016 10:25 AM, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 16:24:44 -0400
>>> David Long <dave.long@...aro.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Some architectures (i.e.: sparc64 and arm64) make reasonable partial stack
>>>> duplication for jprobes problematic. Document this.
>>>
>>> Applied to the docs tree, thanks.
>>>
>>> jon
>>>
>>
>> Was kind of hoping to see an ack (or critique) from a sparc maintainer.
>
> So are you saying you don't want the patch applied at this point?
>
> jon
>
I think we can apply it. It's not looking like we're going to get
comments from a sparc/kprobes maintainer. The need for this change was
first addressed on the sparc email alias exactly one week ago, which is
maybe long enough to wait.
Sorry for the trouble,
-dl
Powered by blists - more mailing lists