On Wed, 2013-06-19 at 20:12 +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > Or is this your way to confuse me as much as my code has confused > > you? ;-) > > Of course! this was the main reason.
I knew it! > > > Steven, I convinced myself the patch should be correct. If you agree with > this hack: > > - anything else I should do apart from the change above? > > - should I resend the previous "[PATCH 0/3] tracing: more > list_empty(perf_events) checks" series? > > This series depends on "[PATCH 3/3] tracing/perf: Move the > PERF_MAX_TRACE_SIZE check into perf_trace_buf_prepare()". > > Or I can drop this patch if you do not like it and rediff. > > Just in case, there are other pending patches in trace_kprobe.c > which I am going to resend, but they are orthogonal. I'll pull in the patches and play with them. I'll let you know what I find. Thanks, -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
