[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a2Jxj-aEe-kk+xsEX19mHOc6LQ8O=XXCrWowAP0Vo2Kew@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 22:23:56 +0100
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
To: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@...gle.com>
Cc: Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>,
Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
clang-built-linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: kprobes: rewrite in UAL
On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 7:59 PM 'Nick Desaulniers' via Clang Built
Linux <clang-built-linux@...glegroups.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2021 at 8:15 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> > Plus a lot of extra errors when building with CONFIG_THUMB2_KERNEL,
> > as that uses tests in arch/arm/probes/kprobes/test-thumb.c.
>
> Technically, that's a distinctly separate issue;
> arch/arm/probes/kprobes/test-arm.c is not built with
> CONFIG_THUMB2_KERNEL=y. This patch doesn't introduce those warnings;
> that file has the same issue but it is separate from test-arm.c.
>
> Would you prefer to see a v2 with the swpvsb fix contain fixes for
> test-thumb.c as well, or a separate patch for that?
I think either way is fine. I'd probably go with a combined patch in
this case, since you
are addressing the same issue in two closely related files.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists