Re: [PATCH v2] recordmcount: Correct st_shndx handling

[Steven Rostedt]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 00:32:45 +0800
Mark-PK Tsai <mark-pk.tsai@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 14:47:20 +0800
> > Mark-PK Tsai <mark-pk.tsai@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >   
> > > One should only use st_shndx when >SHN_UNDEF and <SHN_LORESERVE. When
> > > SHN_XINDEX, then use .symtab_shndx. Otherwise use 0.
> > > 
> > > This handles the case: st_shndx >= SHN_LORESERVE && st_shndx != SHN_XINDEX.
> > > 
> > > Reported-by: Mark-PK Tsai <mark-pk.tsai@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Tested-by: Mark-PK Tsai <mark-pk.tsai@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Mark-PK Tsai <mark-pk.tsai@xxxxxxxxxxxx>  
> > 
> > Please explain the two signed-off-by's above. If you are just tweaking
> > Peter's original patch, please add at the start:
> > 
> > From: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > And then just above your signed off by, add what you changed:
> > 
> > Tested-by: Mark-PK Tsai <mark-pk.tsai@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > [ Changed something ]
> > Signed-off-by: Mark-PK Tsai <mark-pk.tsai@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > But state what you changed.
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > 
> > -- Steve  
> 
> Sorry for messing up.

No problem. It's a learning process.

> I've fixed it in v3.

Thanks,

-- Steve