On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 01:44:56PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 18:08:08 +0100 > Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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 > > I guess 3 and 5 are not, but patch 4 adds arm64 code to the samples (as > it requires arch specific asm to handle the direct trampolines). Sorry, yes, I was thinking of arch/arm64/ and then failed spectacularly at communicating :) > > 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. > > Are 3-5 dependent on those changes? If not, I can pull them into my tree. Good question. Florent? Will
