From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964779AbbCETrA (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Mar 2015 14:47:00 -0500 Received: from mail-we0-f179.google.com ([74.125.82.179]:34248 "EHLO mail-we0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751994AbbCETq6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Mar 2015 14:46:58 -0500 Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 20:46:53 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Daniel Thompson Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Jason Cooper , Russell King , Will Deacon , Catalin Marinas , Marc Zyngier , Stephen Boyd , John Stultz , Steven Rostedt , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, patches@linaro.org, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, Sumit Semwal , Dirk Behme , Daniel Drake , Dmitry Pervushin , Tim Sander , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , x86@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.0-rc1 v17 5/6] x86/nmi: Use common printk functions Message-ID: <20150305194653.GA17436@gmail.com> 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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1425558597.2769.53.camel@linaro.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Daniel Thompson wrote: > On Thu, 2015-03-05 at 01:54 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Daniel Thompson 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 I suspect you want to carry the x86 bits yourself? Thanks, Ingo