From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tixy@yxit.co.uk (Tixy) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 15:53:41 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] kprobes: only test 'sub pc, pc, #1b-2b+8-2' on ARMv6 In-Reply-To: References: <1339502874-9104-1-git-send-email-rabin.vincent@stericsson.com> <1339571937.2759.13.camel@computer2.home> <1339767385.2961.7.camel@computer2.home> Message-ID: <1339772021.2794.12.camel@computer2.home> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, 2012-06-15 at 19:30 +0530, Rabin Vincent wrote: > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 7:06 PM, Tixy wrote: > >> How about the following check instead? At least one other place uses > >> it. > > > > Can't you point out the other place which uses it, I couldn't find it. > > arch/arm/kernel/entry-armv.S:445 > #if CONFIG_ARM_THUMB && __LINUX_ARM_ARCH__ >= 6 && CONFIG_CPU_V7 Yes, that's going to need looking at too when V8 arrives. > > The proposed patch below would work, but feels slightly off as it > > assumes that no one will build a kernel to support V6 and V8, but > > without V7. That does seem highly unlikely though, so I personally > > wouldn't object to the patch. > > I've no preference either way, so if a deletion of the test case would get your > acked-by instead of just a non-objection, I'll do that. Actually, the kprobes implementation and test code will need looking at again when V8 hits mainline, so lets not worry about it for the moment. So, in that case, I agree with your revised patch which tests for not CONFIG_CPU_V7 and you have: Acked-by: Jon Medhurst Thanks for looking at kprobes and contributing fixes. As Russell King is the official maintainer of this code, can you add your patches to his patch system? Thanks again. -- Tixy