Hi Steve,
On Thu, 2019-04-18 at 16:13 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 14:58:55 -0500
> Tom Zanussi wrote:
>
> > > Tom,
> > >
> > > Can you review this too?
> >
> > Looks good to me too!
> >
> > Acked-by: Tom Zanussi
> >
>
> Would you be OK to upgrade this to a
On Thu, 2019-04-18 at 09:40 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> [ Added Tom Zanussi ]
>
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 10:41:39 +0200
> Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> > The indirection through struct stack_trace is not necessary at all.
> > Use the
> > storage array based interface.
> >
> > Signed-off-by:
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 14:58:55 -0500
Tom Zanussi wrote:
> > Tom,
> >
> > Can you review this too?
>
> Looks good to me too!
>
> Acked-by: Tom Zanussi
>
Would you be OK to upgrade this to a Reviewed-by tag?
Thanks!
-- Steve
___
iommu mailing
[ Added Tom Zanussi ]
On Thu, 18 Apr 2019 10:41:39 +0200
Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> The indirection through struct stack_trace is not necessary at all. Use the
> storage array based interface.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner
> Cc: Steven Rostedt
Looks fine to me
Acked-by: Steven Rostedt
The indirection through struct stack_trace is not necessary at all. Use the
storage array based interface.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner
Cc: Steven Rostedt
---
kernel/trace/trace_events_hist.c | 12 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
---
