Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1735891 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-09-20 18:30 +0200 |
| Last post | 2017-09-28 03:20 +0200 |
| Articles | 7 on this page of 27 — 7 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
[RFC][PATCH v2 0/7] printk/ia64/ppc64/parisc64: let's deprecate %pF/%pf printk specifiers Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> - 2017-09-20 18:30 +0200
[RFC][PATCH v2 2/7] sections: split dereference_function_descriptor() Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> - 2017-09-20 18:30 +0200
[RFC][PATCH v2 7/7] checkpatch: add pF/pf deprecation warning Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> - 2017-09-20 18:40 +0200
Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 7/7] checkpatch: add pF/pf deprecation warning Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> - 2017-09-20 18:40 +0200
[RFC][PATCH v2 1/7] switch dereference_function_descriptor() to `unsigned long' Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> - 2017-09-20 18:40 +0200
[RFC][PATCH v2 5/7] parisc64: Add .opd based function descriptor dereference Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> - 2017-09-20 18:40 +0200
[RFC][PATCH v2 4/7] powerpc64: Add .opd based function descriptor dereference Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> - 2017-09-20 18:40 +0200
[RFC][PATCH v2 7/7] checkpatch: add pF/pf deprecation warning Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> - 2017-09-20 18:40 +0200
Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 7/7] checkpatch: add pF/pf deprecation warning Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> - 2017-09-20 19:40 +0200
Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 7/7] checkpatch: add pF/pf deprecation warning Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de> - 2017-09-20 20:00 +0200
Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 7/7] checkpatch: add pF/pf deprecation warning Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> - 2017-09-20 20:30 +0200
Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 7/7] checkpatch: add pF/pf deprecation warning Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> - 2017-09-21 09:50 +0200
Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 7/7] checkpatch: add pF/pf deprecation warning Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> - 2017-09-21 02:30 +0200
Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 7/7] checkpatch: add pF/pf deprecation warning Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> - 2017-09-21 04:30 +0200
[RFC][PATCH v2 6/7] symbol lookup: use new kernel and module dereference functions Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> - 2017-09-20 18:40 +0200
Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 6/7] symbol lookup: use new kernel and module dereference functions Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> - 2017-09-21 11:40 +0200
Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 0/7] printk/ia64/ppc64/parisc64: let's deprecate %pF/%pf printk specifiers Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de> - 2017-09-20 22:20 +0200
Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 0/7] printk/ia64/ppc64/parisc64: let's deprecate %pF/%pf printk specifiers Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> - 2017-09-21 02:40 +0200
Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 0/7] printk/ia64/ppc64/parisc64: let's deprecate %pF/%pf printk specifiers Santosh Sivaraj <santosh@fossix.org> - 2017-09-22 07:40 +0200
Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 0/7] printk/ia64/ppc64/parisc64: let's deprecate %pF/%pf printk specifiers Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> - 2017-09-22 10:10 +0200
RE: [RFC][PATCH v2 0/7] printk/ia64/ppc64/parisc64: let's deprecate %pF/%pf printk specifiers "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com> - 2017-09-22 18:50 +0200
Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 0/7] printk/ia64/ppc64/parisc64: let's deprecate %pF/%pf printk specifiers Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> - 2017-09-25 09:10 +0200
RE: [RFC][PATCH v2 0/7] printk/ia64/ppc64/parisc64: let's deprecate %pF/%pf printk specifiers "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com> - 2017-09-25 18:40 +0200
Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 0/7] printk/ia64/ppc64/parisc64: let's deprecate %pF/%pf printk specifiers Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de> - 2017-09-25 19:10 +0200
Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 0/7] printk/ia64/ppc64/parisc64: let's deprecate %pF/%pf printk specifiers Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> - 2017-09-27 07:10 +0200
Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 0/7] printk/ia64/ppc64/parisc64: let's deprecate %pF/%pf printk specifiers Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> - 2017-09-27 08:30 +0200
Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 0/7] printk/ia64/ppc64/parisc64: let's deprecate %pF/%pf printk specifiers Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> - 2017-09-28 03:20 +0200
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
| From | "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-22 18:50 +0200 |
| Subject | RE: [RFC][PATCH v2 0/7] printk/ia64/ppc64/parisc64: let's deprecate %pF/%pf printk specifiers |
| Message-ID | <uszjk-8ri-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1737248 |
Tested patch series on ia64 successfully. Tested-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com> After this goes upstream, you should submit a patch to get rid of all uses of %pF (70 instances in 35 files) and %pf (63 in 34) Perhaps break the patch by top-level directory (e.g. get all the %pF and %pF in the 17 files under drivers/ in one patch). -Tony
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-25 09:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 0/7] printk/ia64/ppc64/parisc64: let's deprecate %pF/%pf printk specifiers |
| Message-ID | <utvGG-33T-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1737660 |
On (09/22/17 16:48), Luck, Tony wrote: [..] > Tested patch series on ia64 successfully. > > Tested-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com> thanks! > After this goes upstream, you should submit a patch to get rid of > all uses of %pF (70 instances in 35 files) and %pf (63 in 34) > > Perhaps break the patch by top-level directory (e.g. get all the %pF > and %pF in the 17 files under drivers/ in one patch). frankly, I was going to have some sort of a lazy deprecation process: didn't plan to send out a patch set that would hunt down all pf/pF-s. hm... speaking of upstream, any objections if this patch set will go through the printk tree, in one piece? I'll wait for several more days and then resend v3 with updated Documentation and tweaked checkpatch warning message. -ss
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-25 18:40 +0200 |
| Subject | RE: [RFC][PATCH v2 0/7] printk/ia64/ppc64/parisc64: let's deprecate %pF/%pf printk specifiers |
| Message-ID | <utEAj-q7-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1738778 |
> speaking of upstream, any objections if this patch set will go through > the printk tree, in one piece? Seems to be a better idea than trying to coordinate pulls from three separate "arch/" trees. Fine with me. -Tony
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-25 19:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 0/7] printk/ia64/ppc64/parisc64: let's deprecate %pF/%pf printk specifiers |
| Message-ID | <utF3k-So-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1739163 |
On 25.09.2017 18:29, Luck, Tony wrote: >> speaking of upstream, any objections if this patch set will go through >> the printk tree, in one piece? Fine with me too. Helge
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-27 07:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <uucLE-6o3-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1738778 |
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> writes: > On (09/22/17 16:48), Luck, Tony wrote: > [..] >> Tested patch series on ia64 successfully. >> >> Tested-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com> > > thanks! > >> After this goes upstream, you should submit a patch to get rid of >> all uses of %pF (70 instances in 35 files) and %pf (63 in 34) >> >> Perhaps break the patch by top-level directory (e.g. get all the %pF >> and %pF in the 17 files under drivers/ in one patch). > > frankly, I was going to have some sort of a lazy deprecation process: > didn't plan to send out a patch set that would hunt down all pf/pF-s. > hm... That never works though, we have lots of cruft left over from times when that's happened and the conversion never quite got finished. At least if you send out the patches to do the removal they might eventually get merged. > speaking of upstream, any objections if this patch set will go through > the printk tree, in one piece? Do you mind putting it in a topic branch (based on rc2) and then merge that into the printk tree? That way I can merge the topic branch iff there are conflicts later down the line towards 4.15. cheers
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-27 08:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <uue14-75a-15@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1737192 |
Santosh Sivaraj <santosh@fossix.org> writes: > * Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> wrote (on 2017-09-20 16:29:02 +0000): > >> Hello >> >> RFC >> >> On some arches C function pointers are indirect and point to >> a function descriptor, which contains the actual pointer to the code. >> This mostly doesn't matter, except for cases when people want to print >> out function pointers in symbolic format, because the usual '%pS/%ps' >> does not work on those arches as expected. That's the reason why we >> have '%pF/%pf', but since it's here because of a subtle ABI detail >> specific to some arches (ppc64/ia64/parisc64) it's easy to misuse >> '%pF/%pf' and '%pS/%ps' (see [1], for example). >> >> This patch set attempts to move ia64/ppc64/parisc64 C function >> pointer ABI details out of printk() to arch code. Function dereference >> code now checks if a pointer belongs to a .opd ELF section and dereferences >> that pointer only if it does. The kernel and modules have their own .opd >> sections that's why I use two different ARCH functions: for kernel and >> for module pointer dereference. >> >> I planned to remove dereference_function_descriptor() entirely, >> but then I discovered a bunch other uses cases (kgdbts, init/main.c, >> extable, etc.), so I decided to keep dereference_function_descriptor() >> around because the main point of this patch set is to deprecate %pF/%pf. >> But at the same time, I think I can go further and handle both kernel >> and module descriptor dereference in dereference_function_descriptor(). >> We need a module pointer for module .opd check, so that will come at an >> extra cost of module lookup (may be there will some other issues along >> the way, haven't checked it). >> >> Right now we've got: >> >> - dereference_function_descriptor(addr) >> a generic (old) function. it simply attempts to dereference >> whatever pointer we give it. >> >> - dereference_kernel_function_descriptor(addr) >> dereferences a kernel pointer if it's within the kernel's .opd >> section. >> >> - dereference_module_function_descriptor(module, addr) >> dereference a module pointer if it's within the module's .opd >> section. >> >> >> *** A BIG NOTE *** >> I don't own ia64/ppc64/parisc64 hardware, so the patches are not >> tested. Sorry about that! > > Tested patch series on ppc64 sucessfully. > > You may add tested by to the series. > > Tested-by: Santosh Sivaraj <santosh@fossix.org> Thanks Santosh. I also gave it a quick spin. I'll give you an ack for the powerpc changes. Acked-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> (powerpc) Thanks for cleaning this up Sergey. cheers
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-09-28 03:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 0/7] printk/ia64/ppc64/parisc64: let's deprecate %pF/%pf printk specifiers |
| Message-ID | <uuvEB-2fs-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1740419 |
On (09/27/17 16:26), Michael Ellerman wrote: [..] > > Tested-by: Santosh Sivaraj <santosh@fossix.org> > > Thanks Santosh. > > I also gave it a quick spin. I'll give you an ack for the powerpc changes. > > Acked-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> (powerpc) > > > Thanks for cleaning this up Sergey. thanks! -ss
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web