[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1558363129.y2x8hf9shq.naveen@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 20:12:48 +0530
From: "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] x86/ftrace: Fix use of flags in
ftrace_replace_code()
Hi Steven,
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2019 09:13:20 -0400
> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
>
>
>> > I haven't yet tested this patch on x86, but this looked wrong so sending
>> > this as a RFC.
>>
>> This code has been through a bit of updates, and I need to go through
>> and clean it up. I'll have to take a look and convert "int" to "bool"
>> so that "enable" is not confusing.
>>
>> Thanks, I think I'll try to do a clean up first, and then this patch
>> shouldn't "look wrong" after that.
>>
>
> I'm going to apply the attached two patches. There may be some
> conflicts between yours here and these, but nothing that Linus can't
> figure out. Do you feel more comfortable with this code, if these
> patches are applied?
Thanks, that definitely helps make things clearer. A very small nit from
your first patch -- it would be good to also convert the calls to
ftrace_check_record() to use 'true' or 'false' for the 'update' field.
I will test my series in more detail and post a v1.
- Naveen
Powered by blists - more mailing lists