On Fri, 6 Feb 2015 22:07:56 +0100 Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Your patchset fixes the issue for me (look at the attached files for > more detailed information). So I can add your Tested-by tag? > > I tested the "To Be Loved" (TBL VS. TLB flushes) edition against > Linux-next (next-20150204) where I had originally seen and reported > the call-trace. > > Before I forget... The Fixes-tag misses pointing to Dave Hansen's... > > commit d17d8f9dedb9dd76fd540a5c497101529d9eb25a > "x86/mm: Add tracepoints for TLB flushes" Sure, I can add that, and even Cc stable for 3.17+. > > My POV is that both patches somehow belong together. > If you decide to push them through two different trees, please add a > note/reference to each other. The second patch should reference the first one. But the first patch is a much broader change and more generic which could affect many other locations as well. It is specific to tracepoints, where the tlb one is specific to a single instance. As the first patch affects all tracepoints, I want it in my tree. -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
