| Message ID | 52D3D784.2000600@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded, archived |
| Headers | show |
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?
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?
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...
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.