From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 405zs61tmbzF1qr for ; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 06:10:17 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0098396.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w2LJ6Xb1014749 for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 15:10:12 -0400 Received: from e06smtp14.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp14.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.110]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2guw2hrrn5-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA256 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 15:10:12 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp14.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 19:10:10 -0000 Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 00:40:05 +0530 From: "Naveen N. Rao" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] powerpc64/ftrace: Implement support for ftrace_regs_caller() To: Steven Rostedt Cc: Anton Blanchard , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Michael Ellerman , Nicholas Piggin , Paul Mackerras , sathnaga@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <764a63e7418b05185434fe660814ce762c93c7d0.1521627906.git.naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180321095912.212e0b0d@gandalf.local.home> <1521642624.97rikdhoqw.naveen@linux.ibm.com> <20180321112221.16cd9c3c@gandalf.local.home> <1521646126.5jxja0sxh5.naveen@linux.ibm.com> <20180321113142.7291ded1@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20180321113142.7291ded1@gandalf.local.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Message-Id: <1521659240.f7qx4q0lp4.naveen@linux.ibm.com> List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 20:59:03 +0530 > "Naveen N. Rao" wrote: >=20 >> Thanks for the review! >=20 > You're welcome. Note, I did put "Acked-by" and not "Reviewed-by" > because my "Reviewed-by" is usually a bit more thorough than what I did > for your patches. That's because it's been a while since I have worked > on PPC and don't feel comfortable adding "Reviewed-by" for PPC code. :-/ Sure, I understand. As long as the rest of the changes look fine, that's=20 good. Michael Ellerman wrote the -mprofile-kernel ftrace_caller()=20 implementation, so I'll look forward to his review of that part. - Naveen =