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:   Wed, 16 Oct 2019 18:58:42 +0100
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To:     Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>
Cc:     Ruslan Bilovol <ruslan.bilovol@gmail.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, Torsten Duwe <duwe@lst.de>,
        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 <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: <20191016175841.GF46264@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <20190208150826.44EBC68DD2@newverein.lst.de>
 <0f8d2e77-7e51-fba8-b179-102318d9ff84@arm.com>
 <20190311114945.GA5625@lst.de>
 <20190408153628.GL6139@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
 <20190409175238.GE9255@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com>
 <CAB=otbRXuDHSmh9NrGYoep=hxOKkXVsy6R84ACZ9xELwNr=4AA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190724161500.GG2624@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com>
 <nycvar.YFH.7.76.1910161341520.13160@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.YFH.7.76.1910161341520.13160@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.1+11 (2f07cb52) (2018-12-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 01:42:59PM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2019, Mark Rutland wrote:
> 
> > > > > > 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 agains for the delay on this. I'm now back in the office and in
> > > > > front of a computer daily, so I can spend a bit more time on this.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regardless of anything else, I think that we should queue the first
> > > > > three patches now. I've poked the relevant maintainers for their acks so
> > > > > that those can be taken via the arm64 tree.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm happy to do the trivial cleanups on the last couple of patches (e.g.
> > > > > s/lr/x30), and I'm actively looking at the API rework I requested.
> > > >
> > > > Ok, I've picked up patches 1-3 and I'll wait for you to spin updates to the
> > > > last two.
> > > 
> > > Ok, I see that patches 1-3 are picked up and are already present in recent
> > > kernels.
> > > 
> > > Is there any progress on remaining two patches?
> > 
> > I'm afraid that I've been distracted on other fronts, so I haven't made
> > progress there.
> > 
> > > Any help required?
> > 
> > If you'd be happy to look at the cleanup I previously suggested for the
> > core, that would be great. When I last looked, it was simple to rework
> > things so that arch code doesn't have to define MCOUNT_ADDR, but I
> > hadn't figured out exactly how to split the core mcount assumptions from
> > the important state machine bits.
> > 
> > I'll take another look and see if I can provide more detail. :)
> 
> Hi Mark,

Hi Jiri,

> has any progress been made on any front? Feels like this got stuck a bit.

Sorry about this; I've been a bit distracted.

I've just done the core (non-arm64) bits today, and pushed that out:

  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mark/linux.git/log/?h=arm64/ftrace-with-regs

... I'll fold the remainging bits of patches 4 and 5 together tomorrow
atop of that.

Thanks,
Mark.