On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 10:18 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? > Yes. >> >> 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+. > Excellent! >> >> 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. > Important for me is that the reference is embedded. - Sedat - -- 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
