From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752003AbcBXJXY (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 24 Feb 2016 04:23:24 -0500
Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:42349 "EHLO newverein.lst.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1750769AbcBXJXU (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 24 Feb 2016 04:23:20 -0500
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 10:23:18 +0100
From: Torsten Duwe <duwe@lst.de>
To: Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        Jessica Yu <jeyu@redhat.com>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Kamalesh Babulal <kamalesh@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        live-patching@vger.kernel.org, Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 8/8] livepatch: Detect offset for the ftrace
	location during build
Message-ID: <20160224092318.GA24232@lst.de>
References: <20160212164517.GO12548@pathway.suse.cz> <20160216054701.GA20570@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20160216082302.GA20522@lst.de> <20160216103028.GA10730@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20160216103907.GB25103@lst.de> <20160216135742.GT12548@pathway.suse.cz> <1455678521.2956.4.camel@ellerman.id.au> <20160223170017.GB21932@lst.de> <56CD4FA0.4090109@gmail.com> <56CD53E7.3010108@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <56CD53E7.3010108@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 05:55:35PM +1100, Balbir Singh wrote:
> <snip>
> 
> We need to remove the SQUASH_TOC_SAVE_INSNS bits as well, now that the ppc64_profile_stub_insns does not save r2

Sure -- this was meant to _replace_ the changes from patch 2/8, not on top.
And yes, it exposes duplicate definitions, but does not cause them AFAICS.
The two unasked questions about it were: Is Michael's solution on a similar
basis? Is this worth any further effort e.g. put into v9?

	Torsten