Hi Michael, On 2017/03/08 09:43PM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n....@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: > > > With ABIv2, we offset 8 bytes into a function to get at the local entry > > point. > > > > Acked-by: Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli <ana...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > Acked-by: Michael Ellerman <m...@ellerman.id.au> > > Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n....@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > --- > > arch/powerpc/kernel/kprobes.c | 9 +++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) > > I'm OK with this change, and I'm happy for it to go with the rest of the > series via acme's tree: > > Acked-by: Michael Ellerman <m...@ellerman.id.au> > > > But, you've also sent a series to do KPROBES_ON_FTRACE, and that also > touches this function, see the 2nd to last hunk at: > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/730675/ > > > If this goes via acme's tree it will be awkward for me to merge the > series above via the powerpc tree.
Ah yes, indeed. > > So we could do topic branches and so on, or we could just drop this > patch from this series, and I'll merge it as part of the other series. > It won't do anything useful until it's merged with a tree that also has > the rest of this series. Or something else I haven't thought of. The arch-independent change that this depends on has been picked up by Arnaldo and pushed to Ingo: https://www.mail-archive.com/linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org/msg115211.html I'm guessing this will go into v4.11? In which case, this powerpc patch should also go in. Otherwise kretprobes will be broken on powerpc64le. I wasn't sure if you were planning on picking up KPROBES_ON_FTRACE for v4.11. If so, it would be good to take this patch through the powerpc tree. Otherwise, this can go via Ingo's tree. Thanks, Naveen
