* Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello Ingo,
>
> On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 01:05:12PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the tracing tree got a conflict in
> > > arch/parisc/include/asm/ftrace.h between commit
> > > d75f054a2cf0614ff63d534ff21ca8eaab41e713 ("parisc: add ftrace (function
> > > and graph tracer) functionality") from the parisc tree and commit
> > > c79a61f55773d2519fd0525bf58385f7d20752d3 ("tracing: make CALLER_ADDRx
> > > overwriteable") from the tracing tree.
> > >
> > > The former adds a non-trivial version of the file, so I used that.
> >
> > You need to be careful, the two trees likely cannot be combined like
> > that, ftrace will likely stop working on parisc because you combine
> > old-parisc with new-ftrace.
> >
> > If the two trees are integrated without forward-porting the parisc
> > ftrace port to the new facilities, then it's safer to do a trivial
> > patch that disables the ftrace bits on parisc.
>
> I'm not sure that they really conflict. My change ("tracing: make
> CALLER_ADDRx overwriteable") only created the empty include file
> that I can unconditionally include <asm/ftrace.h>.
I know, that commit is not a problem. It just exposed the problem
that these trees got combined in linux-next.
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
