Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 0/7] printk/ia64/ppc64/parisc64: let's deprecate %pF/%pf printk specifiers

Michael, On (09/27/17 15:01), Michael Ellerman wrote: > Sergey Senozhatsky writes: > > > On (09/22/17 16:48), Luck, Tony wrote: > > [..] > >> Tested patch series on ia64 successfully. > >> > >> Tested-by: Tony Luck > > > > thanks! > > >

Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 0/7] printk/ia64/ppc64/parisc64: let's deprecate %pF/%pf printk specifiers

On (09/27/17 16:26), Michael Ellerman wrote: [..] > > Tested-by: Santosh Sivaraj > > Thanks Santosh. > > I also gave it a quick spin. I'll give you an ack for the powerpc changes. > > Acked-by: Michael Ellerman (powerpc) > > > Thanks for cleaning

Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 0/7] printk/ia64/ppc64/parisc64: let's deprecate %pF/%pf printk specifiers

Santosh Sivaraj writes: > * Sergey Senozhatsky wrote (on 2017-09-20 > 16:29:02 +): > >> Hello >> >> RFC >> >> On some arches C function pointers are indirect and point to >> a function descriptor, which contains

Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 0/7] printk/ia64/ppc64/parisc64: let's deprecate %pF/%pf printk specifiers

Sergey Senozhatsky writes: > On (09/22/17 16:48), Luck, Tony wrote: > [..] >> Tested patch series on ia64 successfully. >> >> Tested-by: Tony Luck > > thanks! > >> After this goes upstream, you should submit a patch to get rid of >> all

Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 0/7] printk/ia64/ppc64/parisc64: let's deprecate %pF/%pf printk specifiers

On 25.09.2017 18:29, Luck, Tony wrote: speaking of upstream, any objections if this patch set will go through the printk tree, in one piece? Fine with me too. Helge

RE: [RFC][PATCH v2 0/7] printk/ia64/ppc64/parisc64: let's deprecate %pF/%pf printk specifiers

> speaking of upstream, any objections if this patch set will go through > the printk tree, in one piece? Seems to be a better idea than trying to coordinate pulls from three separate "arch/" trees. Fine with me. -Tony

Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 0/7] printk/ia64/ppc64/parisc64: let's deprecate %pF/%pf printk specifiers

On (09/22/17 16:48), Luck, Tony wrote: [..] > Tested patch series on ia64 successfully. > > Tested-by: Tony Luck thanks! > After this goes upstream, you should submit a patch to get rid of > all uses of %pF (70 instances in 35 files) and %pf (63 in 34) > > Perhaps break

RE: [RFC][PATCH v2 0/7] printk/ia64/ppc64/parisc64: let's deprecate %pF/%pf printk specifiers

Tested patch series on ia64 successfully. Tested-by: Tony Luck After this goes upstream, you should submit a patch to get rid of all uses of %pF (70 instances in 35 files) and %pf (63 in 34) Perhaps break the patch by top-level directory (e.g. get all the %pF and %pF in

Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 0/7] printk/ia64/ppc64/parisc64: let's deprecate %pF/%pf printk specifiers

On (09/22/17 11:04), Santosh Sivaraj wrote: [..] > > *** A BIG NOTE *** > > I don't own ia64/ppc64/parisc64 hardware, so the patches are not > > tested. Sorry about that! > > Tested patch series on ppc64 sucessfully. > > You may add tested by to the series. > > Tested-by:

Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 0/7] printk/ia64/ppc64/parisc64: let's deprecate %pF/%pf printk specifiers

* Sergey Senozhatsky wrote (on 2017-09-20 16:29:02 +): > Hello > > RFC > > On some arches C function pointers are indirect and point to > a function descriptor, which contains the actual pointer to the code. > This mostly doesn't

Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 0/7] printk/ia64/ppc64/parisc64: let's deprecate %pF/%pf printk specifiers

On (09/20/17 22:14), Helge Deller wrote: > On 20.09.2017 18:29, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > This patch set attempts to move ia64/ppc64/parisc64 C function > > pointer ABI details out of printk() to arch code. Function dereference > > code now checks if a pointer belongs to a .opd ELF

Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 0/7] printk/ia64/ppc64/parisc64: let's deprecate %pF/%pf printk specifiers

On 20.09.2017 18:29, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: This patch set attempts to move ia64/ppc64/parisc64 C function pointer ABI details out of printk() to arch code. Function dereference code now checks if a pointer belongs to a .opd ELF section and dereferences that pointer only if it does.