| Message ID | 46a640f65b86650d3a7d64a577dd441838de1c20.1486496890.git.naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 2017/02/08 01:24AM, Naveen N Rao wrote: > ... as the weak variant will do. > > Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > --- > arch/arm/probes/kprobes/core.c | 10 ---------- > arch/arm64/kernel/probes/kprobes.c | 6 ------ > 2 files changed, 16 deletions(-) With the generic changes in this series now in -rc1, can you please pick this up? Thanks, Naveen
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 11:37:20PM +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote: > On 2017/02/08 01:24AM, Naveen N Rao wrote: > > ... as the weak variant will do. > > > > Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > --- > > arch/arm/probes/kprobes/core.c | 10 ---------- > > arch/arm64/kernel/probes/kprobes.c | 6 ------ > > 2 files changed, 16 deletions(-) > > With the generic changes in this series now in -rc1, can you please pick > this up? It would've been nice to have been in the To: or Cc: on this patch, I suspect everyone on the ARM side ignored this series (I certainly didn't notice it, and I suspect the ARM64 folk didn't notice it for exactly the same reason.) In any case, this patch needs to be split - ARM and ARM64 are maintained separately (as stated in MAINTAINERS), and patches go via different trees. Please resubmit with the patch split between the architectures and proper recipients in the headers. Thanks.
On 2017/03/06 06:38PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 11:37:20PM +0530, Naveen N. Rao wrote: > > On 2017/02/08 01:24AM, Naveen N Rao wrote: > > > ... as the weak variant will do. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > --- > > > arch/arm/probes/kprobes/core.c | 10 ---------- > > > arch/arm64/kernel/probes/kprobes.c | 6 ------ > > > 2 files changed, 16 deletions(-) > > > > With the generic changes in this series now in -rc1, can you please pick > > this up? > > It would've been nice to have been in the To: or Cc: on this patch, > I suspect everyone on the ARM side ignored this series (I certainly > didn't notice it, and I suspect the ARM64 folk didn't notice it for > exactly the same reason.) > > In any case, this patch needs to be split - ARM and ARM64 are > maintained separately (as stated in MAINTAINERS), and patches go via > different trees. Please resubmit with the patch split between the > architectures and proper recipients in the headers. Got it. Please find the updated patches in this thread. Thanks, Naveen
diff --git a/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/core.c b/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/core.c index a4ec240ee7ba..f89db1e278cf 100644 --- a/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/core.c +++ b/arch/arm/probes/kprobes/core.c @@ -391,16 +391,6 @@ int __kprobes kprobe_fault_handler(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int fsr) return 0; } -int __kprobes kprobe_exceptions_notify(struct notifier_block *self, - unsigned long val, void *data) -{ - /* - * notify_die() is currently never called on ARM, - * so this callback is currently empty. - */ - return NOTIFY_DONE; -} - /* * When a retprobed function returns, trampoline_handler() is called, * calling the kretprobe's handler. We construct a struct pt_regs to diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/kprobes.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/kprobes.c index f0593c92279b..769becae3e90 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/kprobes.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/probes/kprobes.c @@ -371,12 +371,6 @@ int __kprobes kprobe_fault_handler(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int fsr) return 0; } -int __kprobes kprobe_exceptions_notify(struct notifier_block *self, - unsigned long val, void *data) -{ - return NOTIFY_DONE; -} - static void __kprobes kprobe_handler(struct pt_regs *regs) { struct kprobe *p, *cur_kprobe;
... as the weak variant will do. Signed-off-by: Naveen N. Rao <naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> --- arch/arm/probes/kprobes/core.c | 10 ---------- arch/arm64/kernel/probes/kprobes.c | 6 ------ 2 files changed, 16 deletions(-)