From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux)
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:03:19 +0000
Subject: [PATCH 20/40] arm,kgdb: Add hook to catch an oops with debugger
In-Reply-To: <4B54706C.20202@windriver.com>
References: <20100114174821.GB21385@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
	<4B4F7EC2.6030000@windriver.com>
	<20100114204647.GE21385@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
	<4B54706C.20202@windriver.com>
Message-ID: <20100120160319.GC27507@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 08:30:04AM -0600, Jason Wessel wrote:
> That being said, you patch works for the purpose of catching the
> exception and returning with or without the addition of an earlier
> return before bust_spinlocks() which I had proposed.

So does that mean I can have an acked-by for the patch?