From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754956AbYJ3W0g (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Oct 2008 18:26:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752826AbYJ3W03 (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Oct 2008 18:26:29 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:38758 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752823AbYJ3W02 (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Oct 2008 18:26:28 -0400 Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 23:26:15 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Steven Rostedt Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] ftrace: handle NMIs safely Message-ID: <20081030222615.GA20507@elte.hu> References: <20081030200831.467420488@goodmis.org> <20081030203434.GL27407@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00,DNS_FROM_SECURITYSAGE autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 0.0 DNS_FROM_SECURITYSAGE RBL: Envelope sender in blackholes.securitysage.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > * Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > > The robustness of ftrace has been the focus of the code modification > > > in 2.6.28. There is one remaining issue that needed to be addressed. > > > This was the case of NMIs. > > > > applied to tip/tracing/nmisafe, thanks Steve! > > > > this looks a lot nicer approach than either putting some sort of lock > > into NMI context (yuck) or the disabling of NMIs (not really possible > > in a generic way architecturally). > > > > the impact is quite non-trivial, so i dont think this is v2.6.28 > > material. > > Ingo, > > Do you want me to send patches on top of these to address Andrew's > comements? Or do you want me to resend these with the updates. > > I prefer to send patches on top, that way Andrew can make sure I did > his changes correctly ;-) yeah, please do it that way. It's a separate topic so we can fold them back if they are also bugfixes. (and they are all cleanliness related and i wanted to see the stability impact ASAP) Ingo