On 2016/2/29 21:07, Marc Zyngier wrote: > Shannon, > > 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 > Ah, sorry. I realized this later. > 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). > > Thoughts? > It's fine I think. (It's first time to me to face this kind of problem. :)). Thanks for your help. -- 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
