From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935067AbaKNCQW (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:16:22 -0500 Received: from cdptpa-outbound-snat.email.rr.com ([107.14.166.231]:60664 "EHLO cdptpa-oedge-vip.email.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933518AbaKNCQV (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:16:21 -0500 Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 21:16:16 -0500 From: Steven Rostedt To: Daniel Thompson Cc: Ingo Molnar , kgdb-bugreport@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , patches@linaro.org, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, John Stultz , Sumit Semwal , Jason Wessel Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 3.18-rc3 v2 0/2] trace: kdb: Bug fixes for ftdump Message-ID: <20141113211616.0b9fbcf1@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <5460884C.1050401@linaro.org> References: <1411554781-16751-1-git-send-email-daniel.thompson@linaro.org> <1415277716-19419-1-git-send-email-daniel.thompson@linaro.org> <20141106082728.5d4b7161@gandalf.local.home> <5460884C.1050401@linaro.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.10.1 (GTK+ 2.24.25; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-RR-Connecting-IP: 107.14.168.118:25 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 09:41:32 +0000 Daniel Thompson wrote: > On 06/11/14 13:27, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Thu, 6 Nov 2014 12:41:54 +0000 > > Daniel Thompson wrote: > > > >> This patchset makes it possible to use kdb's ftdump command without > >> panicing, crashing or livelocking. The ftdump command cannot be used > >> at all without these changes. > >> > >> IIRC this patches are still pending Jason's ack. > > > > I haven't heard from Jason in a long time. Is he still active? > > [sorry for the delay, I wanted to give Jason a chance to answer this] > > Very occasionally. > > I can't find anything on lkml in the last three months, and I have > unreviewed kdb patches that stretch back well beyond that. > > That said he still helps people on kgdb-bugreport@ from time-to-time > (and as recently as last week). I've also had a little bit of private > contact although nothing very recent. > > On that basis I'd say you shouldn't feel guilty if you have to accept a > change here without an ack. > He had more than enough time to respond. OK, I'll take it. Looking at the first patch, I notice that there's no protection of the static buffer_iter array. I also noticed that there's no protection of the static iter itself (which was there before your patch). I take it that this code is not re-entrant. Thanks! -- Steve