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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24313C7618B for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 16:15:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0232021850 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 16:15:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727295AbfGXQPF (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jul 2019 12:15:05 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:43186 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726099AbfGXQPF (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jul 2019 12:15:05 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94F4828; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 09:15:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lakrids.cambridge.arm.com (usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AD5DE3F71F; Wed, 24 Jul 2019 09:15:02 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 17:15:00 +0100 From: Mark Rutland To: Ruslan Bilovol Cc: Will Deacon , Torsten Duwe , Catalin Marinas , Steven Rostedt , Julien Thierry , Josh Poimboeuf , Ingo Molnar , Ard Biesheuvel , Arnd Bergmann , AKASHI Takahiro , Amit Daniel Kachhap , linux-arm-kernel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, live-patching@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 0/5] arm64: ftrace with regs Message-ID: <20190724161500.GG2624@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com> References: <20190208150826.44EBC68DD2@newverein.lst.de> <0f8d2e77-7e51-fba8-b179-102318d9ff84@arm.com> <20190311114945.GA5625@lst.de> <20190408153628.GL6139@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com> <20190409175238.GE9255@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.1+11 (2f07cb52) (2018-12-01) Sender: live-patching-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: live-patching@vger.kernel.org Hi Ruslan, On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 03:27:58PM +0300, Ruslan Bilovol wrote: > On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 8:52 PM Will Deacon wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 04:36:28PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 12:49:46PM +0100, Torsten Duwe wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 11:11:04AM +0000, Julien Thierry wrote: > > > > > Hi Torsten, > > > > > > > > > > On 08/02/2019 15:08, Torsten Duwe wrote: > > > > > > Patch series v8, as discussed. > > > > > > The whole series applies cleanly on 5.0-rc5 > > > > > > > > So what's the status now? Besides debatable minor style > > > > issues there were no more objections to v8. Would this > > > > go through the ARM repo or via the ftrace repo? > > > > > > Sorry agains for the delay on this. I'm now back in the office and in > > > front of a computer daily, so I can spend a bit more time on this. > > > > > > Regardless of anything else, I think that we should queue the first > > > three patches now. I've poked the relevant maintainers for their acks so > > > that those can be taken via the arm64 tree. > > > > > > I'm happy to do the trivial cleanups on the last couple of patches (e.g. > > > s/lr/x30), and I'm actively looking at the API rework I requested. > > > > Ok, I've picked up patches 1-3 and I'll wait for you to spin updates to the > > last two. > > Ok, I see that patches 1-3 are picked up and are already present in recent > kernels. > > Is there any progress on remaining two patches? I'm afraid that I've been distracted on other fronts, so I haven't made progress there. > Any help required? If you'd be happy to look at the cleanup I previously suggested for the core, that would be great. When I last looked, it was simple to rework things so that arch code doesn't have to define MCOUNT_ADDR, but I hadn't figured out exactly how to split the core mcount assumptions from the important state machine bits. I'll take another look and see if I can provide more detail. :) Thanks, Mark.