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
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org
-
Russell King - ARM Linux -
Taras Kondratiuk