Re: [PATCH 2/4] nmi: add generic nmi tracking state

Ingo Molnar
2009-02-06T15:45:00Z

* Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 03:54:31PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 01:53 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > This code adds an in_nmi() macro that uses the current tasks preempt count
> > > > > > to track when it is in NMI context. Other parts of the kernel can
> > > > > > use this to determine if the context is in NMI context or not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This code was inspired by the -rt patch in_nmi version that was
> > > > > > written by Peter Zijlstra.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which in turn I borrowed from Mathieu.
> > > >
> > > > Steve, could you please fix the attribution?
> > >
> > > Is it OK to rebase the branch to do so?
> >
> > Sure, that's necessary.
> >
> > And note that unless you base your tree against tip:tracing/ftrace i cannot
> > do a straight pull anyway. (your trees are usually based against tip:master
> > - which brings in all other branches)
>
>
> Oh really? I always base my tracing patches against tip/master, assuming
> tracing/ftrace is about always quickly merged into master. But the
> opposite is not necessarily true, I guess you don't merge master into
> tracing/ftrace so quickly to not break the history right? And I guess it's
> better to catch bugs if each individual topics is not too quickly synced
> against tip/master.

email submissions are perfectly OK against tip:master - please keep doing it
that way. It is Git pull requests (which Steve is sending) that should be
against pure topics.

Ingo