On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 01:36:02PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> I guess the issue is when you get a 41 patch series, and there's only
> one patch you need to look at. There's times I get Cc'd on patch sets
> that I have no idea why I'm on the Cc. If I skim the patch set and
> don't see a relevanc
On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 19:21:30 +0200
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Bah. People complain about overly broad cc-lists and the context is on
> > lkml. But sure, I just bounced it to you.
>
> People should stop complaining about that. Deleting a mail is a single
> keystroke. Finding all the patches
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 02:08:19PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2019, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 12:28:22PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > Replace the indirection through struct stack_trace with an invocation of
> > > the storage array based inter
On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 22:02:01 -0500
Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > #ifdef CONFIG_STACKTRACE
> > - struct stack_trace stacktrace;
> > - unsigned longst_entries[DMA_DEBUG_STACKTRACE_ENTRIES];
> > + unsigned intst_len;
> > + unsigned long st_entries[DMA_DEBUG_STACKTRACE_ENTRIE
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 12:28:22PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Replace the indirection through struct stack_trace with an invocation of
> the storage array based interface.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner
> Cc: iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
> Cc: Robin Murphy
> Cc: Christoph Hellwig
>
On Wed, 10 Apr 2019 14:08:19 +0200 (CEST)
Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2019, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >
> > Please always send the whole series out to everyone on the To and Cc
> > list, otherwise patch series are not reviewable.
>
> Bah. People complain about overly broad cc-li
On Wed, 10 Apr 2019, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 12:28:22PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Replace the indirection through struct stack_trace with an invocation of
> > the storage array based interface.
>
> This seems to be missing some context, at least stack_trace_save
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 12:28:22PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Replace the indirection through struct stack_trace with an invocation of
> the storage array based interface.
This seems to be missing some context, at least stack_trace_save does
not actually exist in mainline.
Please always send
Replace the indirection through struct stack_trace with an invocation of
the storage array based interface.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner
Cc: iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Robin Murphy
Cc: Christoph Hellwig
Cc: Marek Szyprowski
---
kernel/dma/debug.c | 13 +
1 file chang
