On Thu, 2015-03-05 at 20:46 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Daniel Thompson <daniel.thomp...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, 2015-03-05 at 01:54 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > * Daniel Thompson <daniel.thomp...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > Much of the code sitting in arch/x86/kernel/apic/hw_nmi.c to support > > > > safe all-cpu backtracing from NMI has been copied to printk.c to > > > > make it accessible to other architectures. > > > > > > > > Port the x86 NMI backtrace to the generic code. > > > > > > Is there any difference between the generic and the x86 code as they > > > stand today? > > > > Shouldn't be any user observable change but there are some changes, > > mostly due to review comments. > > > > 1. The seq_buf structures are initialized at boot and *after* they > > are consumed (originally they were initialized just before use). > > > > 2. The generic code doesn't maintain an equivalent of backtrace_mask > > (which was essentially a copy of cpus_online made when backtracing > > was requested) and instead iterates using for_each_possible_cpu() > > to initialize and dump the seq_buf:s. > > Ok, I have no fundamental objections: > > Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> > > I suspect you want to carry the x86 bits yourself?
I've done plenty of bisectability testing on this set so patches 4 and 5 could be separated from the set and go via the x86 tree. However with your ack I hope that taking the patchset via the irqchip route should be possible. Jason: After I've attended to Joe Perches/Steven Rostedt's comments will you be comfortable enough to take patches 1-5 through one of your trees? It would be great to deliver patch 6 too but rmk is having a short break so getting an ack for that may not work out Daniel. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
