On Tue, 4 Sep 2012 at 16:51, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> My guess would be we're calling that quite early and the __put_user()
> check is getting confused and failing. That means we'll have left some
> code unpatched, which then fails.
>
> Can you try with the patch applied, but instead of returning if the
> __put_user() fails, just continue on anyway.
You mean, like this?
------
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/lib/code-patching.c
b/arch/powerpc/lib/code-patching.c
index dd223b3..755b623 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/lib/code-patching.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/lib/code-patching.c
@@ -21,8 +21,8 @@ int patch_instruction(unsigned int *addr, unsigned int
instr)
int err;
err = __put_user(instr, addr);
- if (err)
- return err;
+// if (err)
+// return err;
asm ("dcbst 0, %0; sync; icbi 0,%0; sync; isync" : : "r" (addr));
return 0;
}
------
Thanks,
Christian.
>
> That will isolate if it's something in the __put_user() (I doubt it), or
> just that the __put_user() is failing and leaving the code unpatched.
>
> cheers
--
BOFH excuse #361:
Communist revolutionaries taking over the server room and demanding all the
computers in the building or they shoot the sysadmin. Poor misguided fools.
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
