From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: mingo@kernel.org (Ingo Molnar)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 20:46:53 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 4.0-rc1 v17 5/6] x86/nmi: Use common printk functions
In-Reply-To: <1425558597.2769.53.camel@linaro.org>
References: <1422022952-31552-1-git-send-email-daniel.thompson@linaro.org>
 <1425463974-23568-1-git-send-email-daniel.thompson@linaro.org>
 <1425463974-23568-6-git-send-email-daniel.thompson@linaro.org>
 <20150305005424.GA21715@gmail.com>
 <1425558597.2769.53.camel@linaro.org>
Message-ID: <20150305194653.GA17436@gmail.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org


* Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 2015-03-05 at 01:54 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@linaro.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > Much of the code sitting in arch/x86/kernel/apic/hw_nmi.c to support 
> > > safe all-cpu backtracing from NMI has been copied to printk.c to 
> > > make it accessible to other architectures.
> > > 
> > > Port the x86 NMI backtrace to the generic code.
> > 
> > Is there any difference between the generic and the x86 code as they 
> > stand today?
> 
> Shouldn't be any user observable change but there are some changes,
> mostly due to review comments.
> 
> 1. The seq_buf structures are initialized at boot and *after* they
>    are consumed (originally they were initialized just before use).
> 
> 2. The generic code doesn't maintain an equivalent of backtrace_mask
>    (which was essentially a copy of cpus_online made when backtracing
>    was requested) and instead iterates using for_each_possible_cpu()
>    to initialize and dump the seq_buf:s.

Ok, I have no fundamental objections:

Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>

I suspect you want to carry the x86 bits yourself?

Thanks,

	Ingo