On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 10:40:45 PDT (-0700), rost...@goodmis.org wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 10:24:58 -0700
Linus Torvalds wrote:
The whole series looks fine to me.
Great! I may just send a pull request to you, after some fixes (see
below).
I still suspect that we should just remove the sysca
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 11:12:18AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 10:40 AM Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >
> > I'll keep it around for now, but this should go as a warning to Dmitry,
> > to get something using it soon, or they may be dropped.
>
> I don't think _that_ is the argu
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 10:40 AM Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> I'll keep it around for now, but this should go as a warning to Dmitry,
> to get something using it soon, or they may be dropped.
I don't think _that_ is the argument.
Quite the reverse: nobody has ever used it, why have it around, and
m
On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 10:24:58 -0700
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> The whole series looks fine to me.
Great! I may just send a pull request to you, after some fixes (see
below).
>
> I still suspect that we should just remove the syscall_set_arguments()
> thing entirely, but even without that, the clea
The whole series looks fine to me.
I still suspect that we should just remove the syscall_set_arguments()
thing entirely, but even without that, the cleanup of the calling
convention is at least an improvement.
Linus
Two and a half years ago I sent out 3 patches and a title letter that
had this[1]:
At Linux Plumbers, Andy Lutomirski approached me to tell me that the
syscall_get_arguments() implementation in x86 was horrible and gcc
certainly gets it wrong. He said that since the tracepoints only pass
6 matches
Mail list logo
