Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 9 Jan 2014 12:54:56 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/5] ARM: kprobes-test: use <asm/opcodes.h> for instruction accesses | From | Taras Kondratiuk <> |
| |
On 3 January 2014 17:53, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) <tixy@linaro.org> wrote: > On Mon, 2013-12-23 at 18:19 +0200, Taras Kondratiuk wrote: >> From: Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk> >> >> Ensure we read instructions in the correct endian-ness by using >> the <asm/opcodes.h> helper to transform them as necessary. >> >> Signed-off-by: Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk> >> [taras.kondratiuk@linaro.org: fix next_instruction() function] >> Signed-off-by: Taras Kondratiuk <taras.kondratiuk@linaro.org> >> --- > > Apart from the spurious line removal (see below) then: > > Acked-by: Jon Medhurst <tixy@linaro.org> > > and you can include an ACK for the other patches in this series too. > > Thanks.
>> @@ -1593,7 +1594,6 @@ static int run_test_cases(void (*tests)(void), const union decode_item *table) >> return 0; >> } >> >> - > > I know the above blank line isn't needed but I believe the convention is > to avoid doing unrelated white-space clean-ups in patches.
Right, I will remove it. Should this series go through Russell's patch tracking system or it can be pulled to some tree?
-- Regards, Taras Kondratiuk
| |