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=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham 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 C9502C04AAC for ; Mon, 20 May 2019 14:42:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A98FC2054F for ; Mon, 20 May 2019 14:42:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2391920AbfETOm5 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 May 2019 10:42:57 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:37420 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1732661AbfETOm5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 May 2019 10:42:57 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098396.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x4KETTeO125592 for ; Mon, 20 May 2019 10:42:56 -0400 Received: from e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.97]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2skujxfpr3-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 20 May 2019 10:42:56 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 20 May 2019 15:42:54 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.109.194) by e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.131) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256/256) Mon, 20 May 2019 15:42:51 +0100 Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.61]) by b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id x4KEgoqj56688680 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 20 May 2019 14:42:50 GMT Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id A481211C052; Mon, 20 May 2019 14:42:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44A0F11C054; Mon, 20 May 2019 14:42:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost (unknown [9.199.34.110]) by d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 20 May 2019 14:42:50 +0000 (GMT) Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 20:12:48 +0530 From: "Naveen N. Rao" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] x86/ftrace: Fix use of flags in ftrace_replace_code() To: Steven Rostedt Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Michael Ellerman , Nicholas Piggin References: <20190520091320.01cdcfb7@gandalf.local.home> <20190520094410.772443df@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20190520094410.772443df@gandalf.local.home> User-Agent: astroid/0.14.0 (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 x-cbid: 19052014-4275-0000-0000-00000336BB24 X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused x-cbparentid: 19052014-4276-0000-0000-000038464C33 Message-Id: <1558363129.y2x8hf9shq.naveen@linux.ibm.com> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:,, definitions=2019-05-20_07:,, signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=978 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1810050000 definitions=main-1905200096 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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