On Mon, 20 May 2019 20:12:48 +0530
"Naveen N. Rao" wrote:
> Thanks, that definitely helps make things clearer. A very small nit from
> your first patch -- it would be good to also convert the calls to
> ftrace_check_record() to use 'true' or 'false' for the 'update' field.
Heh, I was so focus
Hi Steven,
Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Mon, 20 May 2019 09:13:20 -0400
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> I haven't yet tested this patch on x86, but this looked wrong so sending
> this as a RFC.
This code has been through a bit of updates, and I need to go through
and clean it up. I'll have to take a
On Mon, 20 May 2019 09:13:20 -0400
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > I haven't yet tested this patch on x86, but this looked wrong so sending
> > this as a RFC.
>
> This code has been through a bit of updates, and I need to go through
> and clean it up. I'll have to take a look and convert "int" to
On Sat, 18 May 2019 00:32:46 +0530
"Naveen N. Rao" wrote:
> In commit a0572f687fb3c ("ftrace: Allow ftrace_replace_code() to be
> schedulable), the generic ftrace_replace_code() function was modified to
> accept a flags argument in place of a single 'enable' flag. However, the
> x86 version of th
