[GIT,PULL] ARM: kprobes: big-endian support

Submitted by Taras Kondratiuk on Jan. 13, 2014, 12:09 p.m.

Details

Message ID 52D3D784.2000600@linaro.org
State New
Headers show

Pull-request

git://git.linaro.org/people/taras.kondratiuk/linux.git tags/for_russell/arm-be-kprobes

Commit Message

Taras Kondratiuk Jan. 13, 2014, 12:09 p.m.
Hi Russell,

Please pull fixes for ARM Kprobes big-endian support.

It is reworked initial Ben's series for big endian support [1].
Dropped patches that are not directly related to kprobes.
Current set of patches is enough to have functional BE kprobes.

One ARM kprobe test fails on Cortex-A15 boards (TC2 and Keystone2 EVM),
while it passes on Pandaboard. The issue is not related to this series
and already present in v3.13-rc7.

[1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg285210.html

Comments

Taras Kondratiuk Feb. 19, 2014, 10:59 p.m.
On 01/13/2014 02:09 PM, Taras Kondratiuk wrote:
> Hi Russell,
> 
> Please pull fixes for ARM Kprobes big-endian support.
> 
> It is reworked initial Ben's series for big endian support [1].
> Dropped patches that are not directly related to kprobes.
> Current set of patches is enough to have functional BE kprobes.
> 
> One ARM kprobe test fails on Cortex-A15 boards (TC2 and Keystone2 EVM),
> while it passes on Pandaboard. The issue is not related to this series
> and already present in v3.13-rc7.
> 
> [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg285210.html
> 

Hi Russell,

This pull request is based on 3.13-rc8, but it applies cleanly to
3.14-rc3, because kprobes are not touched since then.
Do I need to resent a new pull request based on 3.14-rc3 anyway?
Taras Kondratiuk March 26, 2014, 10:26 a.m.
On 02/20/2014 12:59 AM, Taras Kondratiuk wrote:
> On 01/13/2014 02:09 PM, Taras Kondratiuk wrote:
>> Hi Russell,
>>
>> Please pull fixes for ARM Kprobes big-endian support.
>>
>> It is reworked initial Ben's series for big endian support [1].
>> Dropped patches that are not directly related to kprobes.
>> Current set of patches is enough to have functional BE kprobes.
>>
>> One ARM kprobe test fails on Cortex-A15 boards (TC2 and Keystone2 EVM),
>> while it passes on Pandaboard. The issue is not related to this series
>> and already present in v3.13-rc7.
>>
>> [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg285210.html
>>
> 
> Hi Russell,
> 
> This pull request is based on 3.13-rc8, but it applies cleanly to
> 3.14-rc3, because kprobes are not touched since then.
> Do I need to resent a new pull request based on 3.14-rc3 anyway?
> 

Hi Russell,

Is there any issue with this pull request?
Should I do something to get it pulled?
Russell King - ARM Linux March 28, 2014, 11:28 a.m.
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:26:34PM +0200, Taras Kondratiuk wrote:
> On 02/20/2014 12:59 AM, Taras Kondratiuk wrote:
> > On 01/13/2014 02:09 PM, Taras Kondratiuk wrote:
> >> Hi Russell,
> >>
> >> Please pull fixes for ARM Kprobes big-endian support.
> >>
> >> It is reworked initial Ben's series for big endian support [1].
> >> Dropped patches that are not directly related to kprobes.
> >> Current set of patches is enough to have functional BE kprobes.
> >>
> >> One ARM kprobe test fails on Cortex-A15 boards (TC2 and Keystone2 EVM),
> >> while it passes on Pandaboard. The issue is not related to this series
> >> and already present in v3.13-rc7.
> >>
> >> [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg285210.html
> >>
> > 
> > Hi Russell,
> > 
> > This pull request is based on 3.13-rc8, but it applies cleanly to
> > 3.14-rc3, because kprobes are not touched since then.
> > Do I need to resent a new pull request based on 3.14-rc3 anyway?
> > 
> 
> Hi Russell,
> 
> Is there any issue with this pull request?
> Should I do something to get it pulled?

There's nothing wrong, apart from me being far too busy hacking on really
crap code to care about reading much email - which means that lots of
email simply just gets buried and lost.

There is now a problem with this pull - it conflicts very badly with Dave
Long's uprobes code, which I've already pulled, so much so that I'm not
happy to do the conflict resolution since I know nothing about this code,
and it's a feature I don't make any use of.

I notice that Dave Long and yourself are both under the Linaro umbrella,
but there seems to be no coordination between yourselves, despite working
on the same code...
Taras Kondratiuk March 28, 2014, 6:13 p.m.
On 03/28/2014 01:28 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:26:34PM +0200, Taras Kondratiuk wrote:
>> On 02/20/2014 12:59 AM, Taras Kondratiuk wrote:
>>
>> Hi Russell,
>>
>> Is there any issue with this pull request?
>> Should I do something to get it pulled?
> 
> There's nothing wrong, apart from me being far too busy hacking on really
> crap code to care about reading much email - which means that lots of
> email simply just gets buried and lost.
> 
> There is now a problem with this pull - it conflicts very badly with Dave
> Long's uprobes code, which I've already pulled, so much so that I'm not
> happy to do the conflict resolution since I know nothing about this code,
> and it's a feature I don't make any use of.

I've rebased it onto your for-next branch. Kprobes are functional
in LE and BE. I'll send an updated pull request after verifying uprobes.

> I notice that Dave Long and yourself are both under the Linaro umbrella,
> but there seems to be no coordination between yourselves, despite working
> on the same code...

Yeah, we are working in different teams and unfortunately haven't coordinated
an upstreaming sequence.
Russell King - ARM Linux March 28, 2014, 6:22 p.m.
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 08:13:05PM +0200, Taras Kondratiuk wrote:
> On 03/28/2014 01:28 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:26:34PM +0200, Taras Kondratiuk wrote:
> >> On 02/20/2014 12:59 AM, Taras Kondratiuk wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Russell,
> >>
> >> Is there any issue with this pull request?
> >> Should I do something to get it pulled?
> > 
> > There's nothing wrong, apart from me being far too busy hacking on really
> > crap code to care about reading much email - which means that lots of
> > email simply just gets buried and lost.
> > 
> > There is now a problem with this pull - it conflicts very badly with Dave
> > Long's uprobes code, which I've already pulled, so much so that I'm not
> > happy to do the conflict resolution since I know nothing about this code,
> > and it's a feature I don't make any use of.
> 
> I've rebased it onto your for-next branch. Kprobes are functional
> in LE and BE. I'll send an updated pull request after verifying uprobes.

That's not going to work.  for-next is an unstable branch - all the
merge commits there get regenerated on a fairly regular basis.

A better solution would be to base your patches on top of Dave Long's
changes, which can be found at

 git://git.linaro.org/people/dave.long/linux uprobes-v7

and should have an ID of c7edc9e326d5.
Taras Kondratiuk March 28, 2014, 9:43 p.m.
On 03/28/2014 08:22 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 08:13:05PM +0200, Taras Kondratiuk wrote:
>> On 03/28/2014 01:28 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:26:34PM +0200, Taras Kondratiuk wrote:
>>>> On 02/20/2014 12:59 AM, Taras Kondratiuk wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Russell,
>>>>
>>>> Is there any issue with this pull request?
>>>> Should I do something to get it pulled?
>>>
>>> There's nothing wrong, apart from me being far too busy hacking on really
>>> crap code to care about reading much email - which means that lots of
>>> email simply just gets buried and lost.
>>>
>>> There is now a problem with this pull - it conflicts very badly with Dave
>>> Long's uprobes code, which I've already pulled, so much so that I'm not
>>> happy to do the conflict resolution since I know nothing about this code,
>>> and it's a feature I don't make any use of.
>>
>> I've rebased it onto your for-next branch. Kprobes are functional
>> in LE and BE. I'll send an updated pull request after verifying uprobes.
> 
> That's not going to work.  for-next is an unstable branch - all the
> merge commits there get regenerated on a fairly regular basis.
> 
> A better solution would be to base your patches on top of Dave Long's
> changes, which can be found at
> 
>  git://git.linaro.org/people/dave.long/linux uprobes-v7
> 
> and should have an ID of c7edc9e326d5.

Ok I'll base on Dave's branch.