From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755979Ab1LNIUM (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Dec 2011 03:20:12 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:45868 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755735Ab1LNIUJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Dec 2011 03:20:09 -0500 Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:18:09 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Frederic Weisbecker Cc: Seiji Aguchi , Vaibhav Nagarnaik , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Steven Rostedt , Michael Rubin , David Sharp , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "x86@kernel.org" , Satoru Moriya Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] trace,x86: Add x86 irq vector entry/exit tracepoints Message-ID: <20111214081809.GJ25232@elte.hu> References: <1311983978-10350-1-git-send-email-vnagarnaik@google.com> <1311983978-10350-3-git-send-email-vnagarnaik@google.com> <5C4C569E8A4B9B42A84A977CF070A35B2C57EE47BC@USINDEVS01.corp.hds.com> <20111213192556.GD2421@somewhere.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111213192556.GD2421@somewhere.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.3.1 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 04:52:18PM -0500, Seiji Aguchi wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I'm interested in these tracepoints. > > But this patch removed from -mm tree for some reason. > > > > http://www.spinics.net/lists/mm-commits/msg85707.html > > > > Do you plan to update it and push to upstream? > > Oh weird. Doesn't seem to be in -tip either. Anybody has > any clue about where this patch went? Didn't Thomas critique them - if so then were those observations addressed? Thanks, Ingo