Re: [PATCH 2/4] nmi: add generic nmi tracking state

[Frederic Weisbecker]

On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 03:54:31PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 01:53 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > This code adds an in_nmi() macro that uses the current tasks preempt count
> > > > > to track when it is in NMI context. Other parts of the kernel can
> > > > > use this to determine if the context is in NMI context or not.
> > > > > 
> > > > > This code was inspired by the -rt patch in_nmi version that was
> > > > > written by Peter Zijlstra.
> > > > 
> > > > Which in turn I borrowed from Mathieu.
> > > 
> > > Steve, could you please fix the attribution?
> > 
> > Is it OK to rebase the branch to do so?
> 
> Sure, that's necessary.
> 
> And note that unless you base your tree against tip:tracing/ftrace i cannot 
> do a straight pull anyway. (your trees are usually based against tip:master 
> - which brings in all other branches)


Oh really? I always base my tracing patches against tip/master, assuming
tracing/ftrace is about always quickly merged into master.
But the opposite is not necessarily true, I guess you don't merge master
into tracing/ftrace so quickly to not break the history right? And I guess
it's better to catch bugs if each individual topics is not too quickly synced
against tip/master.

 
> 	Ingo

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/