On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 12:47:49PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 16:56:45 +0100 > Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > IIUC Steve was hoping to take the FUNCTION_GRAPH_RETVAL series through the > > trace tree, and if that's still the plan, maybe both should go that way? > > The conflict is minor, and I think I prefer to still have the ARM64 bits go > through the arm64 tree, as it will get better testing, and I don't like to > merge branches ;-) > > I've added Linus to the Cc so he knows that there will be conflicts, but as > long as we mention it in our pull request, with a branch that includes the > solution, it should be fine going through two different trees. If it's just the simple asm-offsets conflict that Mark mentioned, then that sounds fine to me. However, patches 3-5 don't seem to have anything to do with arm64 at all and I'd prefer those to go via other trees (esp. as patch 3 is an independent -stable candidate and the last one is a bpf selftest change which conflicts in -next). So I'll queue the first two in arm64 on a branch (or-next/ftrace) based on trace-direct-v6.3-rc3. Will
