On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 04:05:25PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: > On Tue 2016-12-06 17:06:06, Abel Vesa wrote: > > Necessary livepatch file added to makefile. > > > > Signed-off-by: Abel Vesa <abelvesa@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > arch/arm/kernel/Makefile | 1 + > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/Makefile b/arch/arm/kernel/Makefile > > index ad325a8..9e70220 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/Makefile > > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/Makefile > > @@ -48,6 +48,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_HAVE_ARM_TWD) += smp_twd.o > > obj-$(CONFIG_ARM_ARCH_TIMER) += arch_timer.o > > obj-$(CONFIG_FUNCTION_TRACER) += entry-ftrace.o > > obj-$(CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE) += ftrace.o insn.o > > +obj-$(CONFIG_LIVEPATCH) += livepatch.o > > It is strange that you add a source file in one patch and make it > build in a much later patch. > > I suggest to restructure the entire patchset a bit. Please, first > add support for FTRACE_WITH_REGS. It makes sense on its own. > Then add the livepatch support on top of it. > > Otherwise, it is not necessary to send v2 immediately for such > non-trivial code. There might be more people that would want > to look at it and it might take days until they find a time. > It is always better to collect some feedback, think about it > over night(s). Every question often opens many other questions > and it usually takes some time until all settles down into > a good picture again. > > Best Regards, > Petr You're right, I should send this into two steps. One patchset that adds FTRACE_WITH_REGS and then a second one that implements the livepatch and is based on the first one. Will do that. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe live-patching" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
