From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 041ABD26D71 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2026 16:19:10 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To: From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=la9dS307TupTSfSOorfB/EvD/poUOL0lBV8mBrqsIVs=; b=vWiuaxzQPYVZsEjouscZVoEqg3 hEjkc7n/bnMy9jwDn2GESDadmkzdf+QdkjsRWnz79pqXhmi4t+fDK7CWc9HRekibJa4qN5OaeCKcy kX71QFr8tb/Pc+KnnGe7U8h4wQ5qkir5MNz/Jkor1tHNk7mKh8wka5DTyZSo4aQQeTklw+RKOh307 EH9ceTLiye436frQeA4JJYz0k4K9aKDpDM4HnaPHy2SvPDjzrsKmq88haJc8RciZI/T1LUjgLKHNJ LfKZUxSe5T1K57Wmg747AZM83wJoeFN5Z/xERbb2Nb4gBPqCuVcJB7LQLoTu7NK8PROUqEyFlLf0c y29OyflA==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1veFCb-00000002bpF-2gct; Fri, 09 Jan 2026 16:19:05 +0000 Received: from smtprelay0011.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.11] helo=relay.hostedemail.com) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1veFCZ-00000002bo8-248l for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 09 Jan 2026 16:19:04 +0000 Received: from omf15.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay03.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3C22B858D; Fri, 9 Jan 2026 16:19:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [HIDDEN] (Authenticated sender: rostedt@goodmis.org) by omf15.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 4363717; Fri, 9 Jan 2026 16:18:58 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2026 11:19:29 -0500 From: Steven Rostedt To: Will Deacon Cc: Jiri Olsa , Masami Hiramatsu , Mahe Tardy , Peter Zijlstra , bpf@vger.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, x86@kernel.org, Yonghong Song , Song Liu , Andrii Nakryiko , Mark Rutland Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 bpf-next 1/2] arm64/ftrace,bpf: Fix partial regs after bpf_prog_run Message-ID: <20260109111929.2010949e@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: References: <20260109093454.389295-1-jolsa@kernel.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.20.0git84 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Stat-Signature: g5kx9yn89q6xixp9gq3pya3dtjj3dsu6 X-Rspamd-Server: rspamout02 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4363717 X-Session-Marker: 726F737465647440676F6F646D69732E6F7267 X-Session-ID: U2FsdGVkX19qsi8Pk5Vu+kdeg20pJJbgBKfhV4KVte8= X-HE-Tag: 1767975538-271428 X-HE-Meta: U2FsdGVkX1+k08Bp3QsylDW1XUY030Ou3SOuOiBJuzqQrn9A94M/dpqz8X3nfwDKqnnVbEEliCPc3ELXIKAVy4dCjTds/KiSK0YAVaUyxBrQdyjWycqLMuDnawcIgbF5ETu5EXR4pVf10mB7SpXMONADy4nyxfBYihZI1sP1xcJXscf3rdJx4jiEyTCNUL5VrfBPhzbWl1RjOaSVWAXVmY0uwdLDC3mSjo/xkSR22uPeuFezKISdyb5ElbYL0lL5N79hZNCEdkjxdBE86ViDcMy8GIZ/pUFQ+1AMzCZP8Atv9c/qKrwpnv2Z/yOsnKm/qqmPNTnCwbrQD744cNBXW0hIpGolLxeV X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20260109_081903_588001_AC499B36 X-CRM114-Status: UNSURE ( 8.76 ) X-CRM114-Notice: Please train this message. X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Fri, 9 Jan 2026 13:47:23 +0000 Will Deacon wrote: > I think the AI thingy is right about dropping the const qualifier here > but overall I prefer this to the previous revisions. Thanks for sticking > with it! Yep, I missed that too :-p I do think AI is better at reviewing than writing code ;-) -- Steve