[lkml]   [2019]   [May]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 2/4] x86/ftrace: Fix use of flags in ftrace_replace_code()
Hi Steven,

Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2019 09:13:20 -0400
> Steven Rostedt <> wrote:
>> > I haven't yet tested this patch on x86, but this looked wrong so sending
>> > this as a RFC.
>> This code has been through a bit of updates, and I need to go through
>> and clean it up. I'll have to take a look and convert "int" to "bool"
>> so that "enable" is not confusing.
>> Thanks, I think I'll try to do a clean up first, and then this patch
>> shouldn't "look wrong" after that.
> I'm going to apply the attached two patches. There may be some
> conflicts between yours here and these, but nothing that Linus can't
> figure out. Do you feel more comfortable with this code, if these
> patches are applied?

Thanks, that definitely helps make things clearer. A very small nit from
your first patch -- it would be good to also convert the calls to
ftrace_check_record() to use 'true' or 'false' for the 'update' field.

I will test my series in more detail and post a v1.

- Naveen

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-05-20 16:43    [W:0.069 / U:6.732 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site