On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 06:54:24PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > 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? Patch 3 (the fix to the ftrace test) does not depend upon patches 1 and 2. It probably would've been better to queue that as a preparatory fix before the other changes. Patch 4 (adding arm64 support to the samples) depends on patch 3. The arm64 parts depends upon patch 1 to be selectable, and without patch 1 the samples will behave the same as before. It could be queued independently of patch 1, but won't have any effect until merged with patch 1. Patch 5 (the bpf selftest list changes) depends on patch 1 alone. Perhaps we could queue 1 and 2 via the arm64 tree, 3 and 4 via the ftrace tree, and follow up with patch 5 via the bpf tree after -rc1? Thanks, Mark.
