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:   Fri, 29 Mar 2019 11:18:53 +0100
From:   Torsten Duwe <duwe@lst.de>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@arm.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>,
        Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.kachhap@arm.com>,
        live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 0/5] arm64: ftrace with regs
Message-ID: <20190329101853.GA18386@lst.de>
References: <20190208150826.44EBC68DD2@newverein.lst.de> <0f8d2e77-7e51-fba8-b179-102318d9ff84@arm.com> <20190311114945.GA5625@lst.de> <20190311121804.GB23361@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190311121804.GB23361@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 12:18:05PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> 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.

Ping?

> 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.

This is generally a good idea, and would affect other architectures as well,
see arch/s390/kernel/ftrace.c ftrace_make_nop(...)

I propose to do this in a second round.

	Torsten