On 29/02/16 15:41, Will Deacon wrote: > 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. Amusingly enough, it looks like the KVM code suffers from the exact same bug (PMCR_EL0.LC is outside of the writeable mask). I'll fix the KVM side, and keep the cleanup patch on the back burner. Thanks for the heads up, M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny... -- 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
