On 12/3/24 18:20, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 18:01:06 -0700
Shuah Khan wrote:
On 12/2/24 12:41, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 01:56:21 +0530
Hari Bathini wrote:
In 'NOFENTRY_ARGS' test case for syntax check, any offset X of
`vfs_read+X` except function entry of
On Thu, 5 Dec 2024 09:06:43 -0700
Shuah Khan wrote:
> I applied this to linux-kselftest fixes - will send it up for rc2 or rc3
Thanks Shuah,
-- Steve
On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 18:01:06 -0700
Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 12/2/24 12:41, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 01:56:21 +0530
> > Hari Bathini wrote:
> >
> >> In 'NOFENTRY_ARGS' test case for syntax check, any offset X of
> >> `vfs_read+X` except function entry offset (0) fits the crit
On 12/2/24 12:41, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 01:56:21 +0530
Hari Bathini wrote:
In 'NOFENTRY_ARGS' test case for syntax check, any offset X of
`vfs_read+X` except function entry offset (0) fits the criterion,
even if that offset is not at instruction boundary, as the parser
come
On Sat, 30 Nov 2024 01:56:21 +0530
Hari Bathini wrote:
> In 'NOFENTRY_ARGS' test case for syntax check, any offset X of
> `vfs_read+X` except function entry offset (0) fits the criterion,
> even if that offset is not at instruction boundary, as the parser
> comes before probing. But with "ENDBR64
In 'NOFENTRY_ARGS' test case for syntax check, any offset X of
`vfs_read+X` except function entry offset (0) fits the criterion,
even if that offset is not at instruction boundary, as the parser
comes before probing. But with "ENDBR64" instruction on x86, offset
4 is treated as function entry. So,
