Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 3 Dec 2011 10:20:43 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/10] [GIT PULL] tracing: various fixes |
| |
* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 09:33 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote: > > > > > Ingo, > > > > > > Please pull the latest tip/perf/core tree, which can be found at: > > > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rostedt/linux-trace.git > > > tip/perf/core > > > > > > Head SHA1: 7e9a49ef542610609144d1afcd516dc3fafac4d6 > > > > > > > > > Gleb Natapov (1): > > > jump_label: jump_label_inc may return before the code is patched > > > > > > Ilya Dryomov (1): > > > tracing: fix event_subsystem ref counting > > > > > > Jiri Olsa (1): > > > tracing/latency: Fix header output for latency tracers > > > > > > Li Zefan (2): > > > tracing: Restore system filter behavior > > > tracing: update Documentation on max preds limit > > > > > > Steven Rostedt (5): > > > tracing: Add boiler plate for subsystem filter > > > lockdep: Show subclass in pretty print of lockdep output > > > ftrace: Remove force undef config value left for testing > > > perf: Fix parsing of __print_flags() in TP_printk() > > > ftrace: Fix hash record accounting bug > > > > > > ---- > > > Documentation/trace/events.txt | 2 -- > > > include/linux/ftrace_event.h | 2 ++ > > > kernel/jump_label.c | 3 ++- > > > kernel/lockdep.c | 30 +++++++++++++----------------- > > > kernel/trace/ftrace.c | 5 +++-- > > > kernel/trace/trace.c | 15 +++++++++++++++ > > > kernel/trace/trace.h | 1 + > > > kernel/trace/trace_events.c | 1 - > > > kernel/trace/trace_events_filter.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-------- > > > kernel/trace/trace_irqsoff.c | 13 ++++++++++++- > > > kernel/trace/trace_sched_wakeup.c | 13 ++++++++++++- > > > tools/perf/util/trace-event-parse.c | 2 ++ > > > 12 files changed, 87 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-) > > > > Pulled, thanks a lot Steve! > > Hi Ingo, > > All these were bug fixes and I was hopping that it would have > been pushed to Linus. I know it just missed the merge window > (it was posted during -rc1) but they are fixes, not > enhancements, and I still believe they are fine for an -rc3 > release. I would have even had it pushed before -rc1 but it > took time running them through all my tests.
Hm, not all were regression fixes and the branch was named */core so i took it into perf/core.
Could you perhaps cherry-pick the most crutial regression fixes into an urgent branch? We could still push that upstream.
Thanks,
Ingo
| |