Hi Steve, On Thu, 2017-09-21 at 16:20 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 13:44:28 -0500 > Tom Zanussi <tom.zanu...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > Yeah, it's almost ready. At this point, I've addressed all the comments > > except for: > > > > - PATCH v2 25/40] tracing: Add support for dynamic tracepoints > > > > which I need to do a little bit of research on to figure out what > > exactly I need to do there. > > Let me know if you need any help. >
OK, thanks. > > > > I was also kind of looking for a couple patches from you to fold in > > which you had mentioned you were going to send for: > > > > - [PATCH v2 35/40] tracing: Reverse the order > > event_mutex/trace_types_lock are taken > > OK, I have a stand alone patch that you don't need to fold in that does > this properly. I tested the crap out of it (missed a few places), but > should be good. I'll send that netx. > > > > - [PATCH v2 40/40] tracing: Add trace_event_buffer_reserve() variant that > > allows recursion > > I have this working too, but want to test it a little more before > sending. Once I do, you can add both patches ahead of your series. I > may just apply them to my tree now and start running them through my > formal tests. > Thanks for these patches - testing now with the mutex patch you just sent and the old trace_recursive_lock() patch, hope to have a v3 out soon. Tom
