[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKwvOdktvrZL8T_5K2VtQtgt_mscS7kzVXYVy0O7CSuGX53Y5A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2018 15:18:19 -0700
From: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
To: dave.anglin@...l.net
Cc: deller@....de, jejb@...isc-linux.org,
Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
pravin.shedge4linux@...il.com,
Kate Stewart <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] parisc: prefer _THIS_IP_ and _RET_IP_ statement expressions
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 3:12 PM John David Anglin <dave.anglin@...l.net> wrote:
>
> On 2018-08-01 5:49 PM, Nick Desaulniers wrote:
> > Thoughts? Idea being there's only one call site in your tree that has
> > this requirement (and the other one in
> > include/net/inet_connection_sock.h I don't think is correct, and will
> > send a patch out imminently).
Turns out it is correct (I assumed by caller, they meant _RET_IP_, but
they're in an inline function). https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/8/1/1687 is
the patch.
> What about the uses in the fs support, etc?
Sorry, I don't see it?
$ ag current_text_addr
and
$ grep -R current_text_addr
turn up nothing in fs/. Is this torvals/linux with no out of tree patches?
--
Thanks,
~Nick Desaulniers
Powered by blists - more mailing lists