Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 11 Mar 2019 12:18:05 +0000
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To:     Torsten Duwe <duwe@lst.de>
Cc:     Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@arm.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>,
        Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.kachhap@arm.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        live-patching@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 0/5] arm64: ftrace with regs
Message-ID: <20190311121804.GB23361@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <20190208150826.44EBC68DD2@newverein.lst.de>
 <0f8d2e77-7e51-fba8-b179-102318d9ff84@arm.com>
 <20190311114945.GA5625@lst.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190311114945.GA5625@lst.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.1+11 (2f07cb52) (2018-12-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Torsten,

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, I have some half-written review comments that I will clean up and
send shortly.

As commented on prior versions, I'd very much like to see the
MCOUNT_ADDR hack go, by teaching the core ftrace code to not assume that
an mcount symbol exists.

We should be able to do that by separating the notion of NOPing a patch
site from the notion of initializing it for the first time.

Thanks,
Mark.