From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751517Ab1LRIaj (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sun, 18 Dec 2011 03:30:39 -0500
Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:51543 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1750814Ab1LRIag (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 18 Dec 2011 03:30:36 -0500
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 09:28:36 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] [GIT PULL] x86: Workaround for NMI iret woes
Message-ID: <20111218082836.GD4144@elte.hu>
References: <20111216225906.481643317@goodmis.org>
 <1324077399.23971.134.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1324077399.23971.134.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.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: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 17:59 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> 
> > I have the ftrace patches pretty much ready, but I would 
> > like to get these in under the x86 branch.
> 
> Bah, I just realized that I based it on the perf branch. Let 
> me rebase it on one of the tip x86 branches or even plain 
> 3.2-rc5, and retest.

perf based or vanilla based would be fine as well.

Thanks,

	Ingo