From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752595AbbHCJJ5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Aug 2015 05:09:57 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:52322 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751637AbbHCJJ4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Aug 2015 05:09:56 -0400 Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 10:09:51 +0100 From: Will Deacon To: Jungseok Lee Cc: Steven Rostedt , Mark Rutland , Catalin Marinas , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , AKASHI Takahiro , "broonie@kernel.org" , "david.griego@linaro.org" , "olof@lixom.net" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Subject: Re: [RFC 2/3] arm64: refactor save_stack_trace() Message-ID: <20150803090951.GA10501@arm.com> References: <12F47692-3010-4886-B87D-3D7820609177@gmail.com> <20150716113115.45a17f17@gandalf.local.home> <20150716121658.7982fdf5@gandalf.local.home> <20150717124054.GE26091@leverpostej> <20150717090009.720f6bd0@gandalf.local.home> <77EA0F10-D5F6-48BD-8652-3B979A978659@gmail.com> <20150717104144.6588b2f7@gandalf.local.home> <0886A996-40E1-49E9-823C-85E55A858716@gmail.com> <1357EA74-B972-4B99-ADB0-BC7E8F06DDB5@gmail.com> <20150720162004.GL9908@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150720162004.GL9908@arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi guys, On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 05:20:04PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 04:34:21PM +0100, Jungseok Lee wrote: > > On Jul 17, 2015, at 11:59 PM, Jungseok Lee wrote: > > > On Jul 17, 2015, at 11:41 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > >> Thanks! Can you repost patch 1 with the changes I recommended, so that > > >> I can get an Acked-by from the arm64 maintainers and pull all the > > >> changes in together. This is fine for a 4.3 release, right? That is, it > > >> doesn't need to go into 4.2-rcs. > > >> > > > > > > It's not hard to repost a patch, but I feel like we have to wait for Akashi's response. > > > Also, it might be needed to consider Mark's comment on arch part. > > > > > > If they are okay, I will proceed. > > > > The [RFC 1/3] patch used in my environment is shaped as follows. > > I leave the hunk for *only* clear synchronization. This is why I choose this format > > instead of reposting a patch. I hope it would help to track down this thread. > > > > I think this is my best at this point. [...] > The arm64 bits look fine to me: > > Acked-by: Will Deacon What happened to this? Is it queued someplace, or are we waiting for a new version? Will From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2015 10:09:51 +0100 Subject: [RFC 2/3] arm64: refactor save_stack_trace() In-Reply-To: <20150720162004.GL9908@arm.com> References: <12F47692-3010-4886-B87D-3D7820609177@gmail.com> <20150716113115.45a17f17@gandalf.local.home> <20150716121658.7982fdf5@gandalf.local.home> <20150717124054.GE26091@leverpostej> <20150717090009.720f6bd0@gandalf.local.home> <77EA0F10-D5F6-48BD-8652-3B979A978659@gmail.com> <20150717104144.6588b2f7@gandalf.local.home> <0886A996-40E1-49E9-823C-85E55A858716@gmail.com> <1357EA74-B972-4B99-ADB0-BC7E8F06DDB5@gmail.com> <20150720162004.GL9908@arm.com> Message-ID: <20150803090951.GA10501@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi guys, On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 05:20:04PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 04:34:21PM +0100, Jungseok Lee wrote: > > On Jul 17, 2015, at 11:59 PM, Jungseok Lee wrote: > > > On Jul 17, 2015, at 11:41 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > >> Thanks! Can you repost patch 1 with the changes I recommended, so that > > >> I can get an Acked-by from the arm64 maintainers and pull all the > > >> changes in together. This is fine for a 4.3 release, right? That is, it > > >> doesn't need to go into 4.2-rcs. > > >> > > > > > > It's not hard to repost a patch, but I feel like we have to wait for Akashi's response. > > > Also, it might be needed to consider Mark's comment on arch part. > > > > > > If they are okay, I will proceed. > > > > The [RFC 1/3] patch used in my environment is shaped as follows. > > I leave the hunk for *only* clear synchronization. This is why I choose this format > > instead of reposting a patch. I hope it would help to track down this thread. > > > > I think this is my best at this point. [...] > The arm64 bits look fine to me: > > Acked-by: Will Deacon What happened to this? Is it queued someplace, or are we waiting for a new version? Will