On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org> wrote: > On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 09:56:33 -0700 > Joel Fernandes <joe...@google.com> wrote: > >> > I don't see the protection in the patches. I will definitely test that >> > before pushing it anywhere. >> >> The protection added by CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING was already there before >> my patches. I just moved the code around in patch 1/2, nothing changed >> in that patch. I already tested the combination of PROVE_LOCKING >> enabled and disabled and several other combinations on your -next >> tree. It all compiled fine. Here is my test script FWIW: >> (By the way, do you mean that another tree/branch than your -next or >> Linus's master has protection removed? If so, could you let me know >> which tree/branch?) > > Using Linus's master is usually fine, but if you want to see what I'm > working on, just look at the ftrace/core branch of my linux-trace.git > tree on kernel.org. Note, that branch often rebases. My for-next branch > does not.
Got it, thanks. > Also note, I'm currently looking to pull in Tom Zanussi's hist patch > series, and then I'll get to yours afterward. Sounds good, thanks a lot! Regards, Joel