Re: [PATCH v8 0/5] arm64: ftrace with regs

[Jiri Kosina]

On Wed, 24 Jul 2019, Mark Rutland wrote:

> > > > > So what's the status now? Besides debatable minor style
> > > > > issues there were no more objections to v8. Would this
> > > > > go through the ARM repo or via the ftrace repo?
> > > >
> > > > Sorry agains for the delay on this. I'm now back in the office and in
> > > > front of a computer daily, so I can spend a bit more time on this.
> > > >
> > > > Regardless of anything else, I think that we should queue the first
> > > > three patches now. I've poked the relevant maintainers for their acks so
> > > > that those can be taken via the arm64 tree.
> > > >
> > > > I'm happy to do the trivial cleanups on the last couple of patches (e.g.
> > > > s/lr/x30), and I'm actively looking at the API rework I requested.
> > >
> > > Ok, I've picked up patches 1-3 and I'll wait for you to spin updates to the
> > > last two.
> > 
> > Ok, I see that patches 1-3 are picked up and are already present in recent
> > kernels.
> > 
> > Is there any progress on remaining two patches?
> 
> I'm afraid that I've been distracted on other fronts, so I haven't made
> progress there.
> 
> > Any help required?
> 
> If you'd be happy to look at the cleanup I previously suggested for the
> core, that would be great. When I last looked, it was simple to rework
> things so that arch code doesn't have to define MCOUNT_ADDR, but I
> hadn't figured out exactly how to split the core mcount assumptions from
> the important state machine bits.
> 
> I'll take another look and see if I can provide more detail. :)

Hi Mark,

has any progress been made on any front? Feels like this got stuck a bit.

Thanks,

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs