[RFC PATCH 2/4] x86/ftrace: Fix use of flags in ftrace_replace_code()

[Naveen N. Rao]

Hi Steven,

Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2019 09:13:20 -0400
> Steven Rostedt <rostedt at 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