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. > Will > > [1] git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/will/linux.git perf/updates > > . > Thanks, -- Shannon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
