Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 23 May 2019 17:51:51 +0100
From:   Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To:     Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@arm.com>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        rostedt@goodmis.org, marc.zyngier@arm.com, yuzenghui@huawei.com,
        wanghaibin.wang@huawei.com, james.morse@arm.com,
        catalin.marinas@arm.com, mark.rutland@arm.com, liwei391@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] arm64: IRQ priority masking and Pseudo-NMI fixes
Message-ID: <20190523165151.GB1716@fuggles.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <1556553607-46531-1-git-send-email-julien.thierry@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1556553607-46531-1-git-send-email-julien.thierry@arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.1+86 (6f28e57d73f2) ()
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Julien,

On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 05:00:02PM +0100, Julien Thierry wrote:
> [Changing the title to make it reflex more the status of the series.]
> 
> Version one[1] of this series attempted to fix the issue reported by
> Zenghui[2] when using the function_graph tracer with IRQ priority
> masking.
> 
> Since then, I realized that priority masking and the use of Pseudo-NMIs
> was more broken than I thought.

Do you plan to respin this in light of Marc's comments?

Will