[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <F9672E89-C01C-443C-A1FB-6EA2B66CBB4D@vmware.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 17:15:28 +0000
From: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
To: Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 6/6] x86/alternatives: remove text_poke() return value
at 2:52 AM, Masami Hiramatsu <mhiramat@...nel.org> wrote:
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/alternative.c
>> @@ -795,7 +795,7 @@ static void text_poke_safe(void *addr, const void *opcode, size_t len,
>> *
>> * Note: Must be called under text_mutex.
>> */
>> -void *text_poke(void *addr, const void *opcode, size_t len)
>> +void text_poke(void *addr, const void *opcode, size_t len)
>> {
>> bool cross_page_boundary = offset_in_page(addr) + len > PAGE_SIZE;
>> struct page *pages[2] = {0};
>
> Could you also remove "return addr;" in this patch ?
Oops. Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists