[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191031171641.GB11684@suse.de>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 18:16:41 +0100
From: Torsten Duwe <duwe@...e.de>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
amit.kachhap@....com, catalin.marinas@....com, deller@....de,
James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com, james.morse@....com,
jeyu@...nel.org, jpoimboe@...hat.com, jthierry@...hat.com,
linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org, svens@...ckframe.org,
takahiro.akashi@...aro.org, will@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 0/8] arm64: ftrace cleanup + FTRACE_WITH_REGS
After yesterday's testing, now
Reviewed-by: Torsten Duwe <duwe@...e.de>
for the series.
Executive summary: where I used x28 as scratch register in ftrace_regs_caller
which I had to save for that reason, you switched to x10, which is so obvious
that I failed to see it. Then the PLT initialisation on module load, and
finally the ftrace_init_nop() hook that got you started initially. The rest
I'd call more or less cosmetic deviations from my v8. IOW: fine with me.
Torsten
Powered by blists - more mailing lists