Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 6 Feb 2009 16:43:50 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/4] nmi: add generic nmi tracking state |
| |
* Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 03:54:31PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> 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.
email submissions are perfectly OK against tip:master - please keep doing it that way. It is Git pull requests (which Steve is sending) that should be against pure topics.
Ingo
| |