[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ec4dc8a9-da6e-7269-dbda-3721b2dc50fd@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 13:56:38 +0000
From: Julien Thierry <jthierry@...hat.com>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
raphael.gault@....com, catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v5 00/57] objtool: Add support for arm64
On 1/21/20 5:50 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 04:07:11PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 04:02:03PM +0000, Julien Thierry wrote:
>>> In the mean time, any feedback on the current state is appreciated.
>>>
>>> * Patches 1 to 18 adapts the current objtool code to make it easier to
>>> support new architectures.
>>
>> In the interrest of moving things along; I've looked through these
>> and 1-14,16 look good to me, 17,18 hurt my brain.
>>
>> Josh, what say you?
>
> Agreed.
>
> Julien, thanks a lot for splitting these up nicely. If you post 1-14
> (updated based on the recent comments), we can look at merging those
> sooner.
>
Sure, I'll repost the refactoring patches separately once I've updated them.
> 15-18 also hurt my brain -- probably a symptom of the existing fragile
> mess -- so I'll need to spend more time staring at them.
>
Yes, the whole state update code hurt quite a lot as well. It took me a
while to convince myself that my changes felt correct (to me at least,
it might be that I got things wrong :) ).
Thanks,
--
Julien Thierry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists