Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 9 Jan 2014 14:00:58 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/5] ARM: kprobes-test: use <asm/opcodes.h> for instruction accesses | From | Taras Kondratiuk <> |
| |
Thanks. I'll prepare a pull request.
On 9 January 2014 13:04, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) <tixy@linaro.org> wrote: > On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 12:54 +0200, Taras Kondratiuk wrote: >> On 3 January 2014 17:53, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) <tixy@linaro.org> wrote: >> > On Mon, 2013-12-23 at 18:19 +0200, Taras Kondratiuk wrote: >> >> From: Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk> >> >> >> >> Ensure we read instructions in the correct endian-ness by using >> >> the <asm/opcodes.h> helper to transform them as necessary. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk> >> >> [taras.kondratiuk@linaro.org: fix next_instruction() function] >> >> Signed-off-by: Taras Kondratiuk <taras.kondratiuk@linaro.org> >> >> --- >> > >> > Apart from the spurious line removal (see below) then: >> > >> > Acked-by: Jon Medhurst <tixy@linaro.org> >> > >> > and you can include an ACK for the other patches in this series too. >> > >> > Thanks. >> >> >> @@ -1593,7 +1594,6 @@ static int run_test_cases(void (*tests)(void), const union decode_item *table) >> >> return 0; >> >> } >> >> >> >> - >> > >> > I know the above blank line isn't needed but I believe the convention is >> > to avoid doing unrelated white-space clean-ups in patches. >> >> Right, I will remove it. >> Should this series go through Russell's patch tracking system or it >> can be pulled >> to some tree? > > I would assume as a pull request sent to Russell using the email alias > he uses for these things: linux+pull@arm.linux.org.uk I'm sure he's > shout up if I'm wrong... > > -- > Tixy >
-- Regards, Taras Kondratiuk
| |