On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 10:10:44 +0800 Shuai Xue <[email protected]> wrote:
> It's a pure comment cosmetic, not worth a respin on its own. But for the I don't know. I've respinned for better comments before. > rest of the feedback on this series (the frame-record metadata contract > in patch 2 and the dead state->regs field / Call Trace output change in > patch 6) are the ones actually worth a new version. > > Just to get the routing straight: are you planning to pick this one up > through the tracing tree on its own? > > It feels like a good candidate for that -- it's an independent > regression fix (Fixes: 0ca1724b56af) that breaks *all* RISC-V dynamic > ftrace, not just livepatch, so it shouldn't have to wait on the rest of > the livepatch series. As it affects RISCV and I don't have a RISCV to test, I would feel more comfortable with it going through a RISCV tree that can test the patch. Feel free to add: Reviewed-by: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> -- Steve
