This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the elfutils project.
Re: pending patches ping
- From: Mark Wielaard <mjw at redhat dot com>
- To: elfutils-devel at lists dot fedorahosted dot org
- Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 11:22:17 +0100
- Subject: Re: pending patches ping
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 22:13 +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> Re: [patch] Implement reglocs for s390/s390x
> Message-ID: <20121014155013.GA5525@host2.jankratochvil.net>
I admit to be a little lost in the review thread. But it seems to me
this could be split up between formatting changes (like the \n, b, B
readelf.c one) and the actual s390_corenote.c change. Would it be
possible to post this as separate patches (and maybe even split off the
test addition if that depends on the formatting)?
> Re: [patch] Fix 64-bit->32-bit vDSO reporting
> Message-ID: <20121012150900.GA24645@host2.jankratochvil.net>
I think this one is fine. Though I admit that I found the first less
efficient version a bit easier to understand. Could add a comment in the
code to explain when/why the valid32/64 heuristic works/doesn't work and
that it is there to prevent having to open pid/exe in normal cases?
> [patchv3] Fix dwfl_report_elf BASE alignment
> Message-ID: <20121116161051.GA2042@host2.jankratochvil.net>
The actual change is very small:
@@ -181,8 +181,6 @@ __libdwfl_report_elf (Dwfl *dwfl, const char *name, const char *file_name,
vaddr = ph->p_vaddr & -ph->p_align;
address_sync = ph->p_vaddr + ph->p_memsz;
- if ((base & (ph->p_align - 1)) != 0)
- base = (base + ph->p_align - 1) & -ph->p_align;
start = base + vaddr;
But I don't fully understand this code so will have to lookup the references you gave first.
> All of the patches may be out of sync (at least due to ChangeLogs). I would
> like to know which ones / in which order to rebase, I was already rebasing
> some in the past.
I am just going (very slowly) through them in the order you listed them.
If you like the reviews in another order please just post rebased
patches to the list.