Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/tbl/trace: Do not trace on CPU that is offline

Sedat Dilek
2015-02-07T19:50:48Z

On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Feb 2015 09:01:34 +0100
> Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> - Tested-by's
>> - Reference of 2/2 to 1/2
>
> The two are together in the series and fix two different bugs. They do
> not need to reference each other.
>
>> - CC: stable v3.17+/v3.18+ ? (1/2 has a hint for backporting in case
>> of 3.17+ which is BTW EOL, not sure if there are main distros
>> supporting linux-3.17.y)
>
> The first patch fixes a bug introduced in 3.18. There would be no splat
> in 3.17 because the check didn't exist then. But the RCU reference
> while cpu offline (second bug) was introduced in 3.17 and that is what
> the second patch fixes.
>
>>
>> BTW, do you happen to know if there is a someting like a
>> "Requires-tag" or "Precondition-tag" (for example the Fixes-tag is
>> very helpful)?
>
> We don't need more tags.
>
>> AFAICS people place such information into the commit-message.
>> I have seen "References:" but this is more to point to a
>> bug-tracking-system (BTS).
>>
>> EXAMPLE:
>>
>> commit 63b03e2d2477586440741677ecac45bcf28d7b1
>> "mutex: Always clear owner field upon mutex_unlock()"
>>
>> References: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=87955
>>
>
> I may add that, but more appropriate would be to add the commit that
> fixes the bug to the bug report.
>
>> Maybe ask godfather of SubmittingPatches greg-kh?
>>
>
> Heh, I haven't read that document in years.
>

Thanks for commenting.

Feel free to add my Tested-by to 2/2.

- Sedat -