On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 01:59:49PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 29/02/16 13:07, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > On 25/02/16 02:02, Shannon Zhao wrote: > >> On 2016/2/25 1:52, Will Deacon wrote: > >>> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 01:08:21PM +0800, Shannon Zhao wrote: > >>>> From: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>> > >>>> To use the ARMv8 PMU related register defines from the KVM code, we move > >>>> the relevant definitions to asm/perf_event.h header file and rename them > >>>> with prefix ARMV8_PMU_. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Anup Patel <anup.patel@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao <shannon.zhao@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>> Acked-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx> > >>>> Reviewed-by: Andrew Jones <drjones@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>>> --- > >>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/perf_event.h | 35 +++++++++++++++++++ > >>>> arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 68 ++++++++++--------------------------- > >>>> 2 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> Looks fine to me, but we're going to get some truly horrible conflicts > >>> in -next. > >>> > >>> I'm open to suggestions on the best way to handle this, but one way > >>> would be: > >>> > >>> 1. Duplicate all the #defines privately in KVM (queue via kvm tree) > >> This way seems not proper I think. > >> > >>> 2. Rebase this patch onto my perf/updates branch [1] (queue via me) > >> While to this series, it really relies on the perf_event.h to compile > >> and test, so maybe for KVM-ARM and KVM maintainers it's not proper. > >> > >>> 3. Patch at -rc1 dropping the #defines from (1) and moving to the new > >>> perf_event.h stuff > >>> > >> I vote for this way. Since the patch in [1] is small and nothing else > >> relies on them, I think it would be simple to rebase them onto this series. > >> > >>> Thoughts? > >>> > >> Anyway, there are only 3 lines which have conflicts. I'm not sure > >> whether we could handle this when we merge them. > > > > I think you're missing the point: > > > > - We want both the arm64 perf and KVM trees to be easy to merge > > - The conflicts are not that simple to resolve > > - We want these conflicts to be solved before it hits Linus' tree > > > > With that in mind, here's what I'm suggesting we merge as a first patch: > > > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/kvmarm/kvmarm.git/commit/?h=queue&id=2029b4b02691ec6ebba3d281068e783353d7e108 > > > > Once this and the perf/updates branch are merged, we can add one last > > patch reverting this hack and actually doing the renaming work (Will has > > posted a resolution for most of the new things). > > For the record, here's the patch I propose we merge once everything gets > into mainline: > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/kvmarm/kvmarm.git/commit/?h=queue&id=ba1e09b2f2cd2d5cc5cfdb76e96460aee1bd9482 I just spotted a bug in my perf/updates branch, so this might need to change ever so slightly. Easiest thing is probably to cook something against -next once we're nearer the merge window and things have settled down. Will _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
