Hi Steven,
Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Mon, 20 May 2019 09:13:20 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org> wrote:
> I haven't yet tested this patch on x86, but this looked wrong so sending
> this as a RFC.
This code has been through a bit of updates, and I need to go through
and clean it up. I'll have to take a look and convert "int" to "bool"
so that "enable" is not confusing.
Thanks, I think I'll try to do a clean up first, and then this patch
shouldn't "look wrong" after that.
I'm going to apply the attached two patches. There may be some
conflicts between yours here and these, but nothing that Linus can't
figure out. Do you feel more comfortable with this code, if these
patches are applied?
Thanks, that definitely helps make things clearer. A very small nit from
your first patch -- it would be good to also convert the calls to
ftrace_check_record() to use 'true' or 'false' for the 'update' field.
I will test my series in more detail and post a v1.
- Naveen