Hi Steven,
Today's linux-next merge of the ftrace tree got a conflict in:
Documentation/trace/ftrace.txt
(converted to Documentation/trace/ftrace.rst)
between commit:
1f198e22bc3a ("trace doc: convert trace/ftrace.txt to rst format")
from the jc_docs tree and commit:
2c1ea60b195d ("tracing: Add timestamp_mode trace file")
from the ftrace tree.
I fixed it up (I deleted the file and added the merge fix patch below -
which probably needs more work) and can carry the fix as necessary.
This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non
trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when
your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider
cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any
particularly complex conflicts.
From: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 15:29:08 +1100
Subject: [PATCH] trace doc: merge fix for rst conversion of ftrace.txt
Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]>
---
Documentation/trace/ftrace.rst | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 24 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/trace/ftrace.rst b/Documentation/trace/ftrace.rst
index 55637926abdc..8aad686ff9a5 100644
--- a/Documentation/trace/ftrace.rst
+++ b/Documentation/trace/ftrace.rst
@@ -543,6 +543,30 @@ of ftrace. Here is a list of some of the key files:
See events.txt for more information.
+ timestamp_mode:
+
+ Certain tracers may change the timestamp mode used when
+ logging trace events into the event buffer. Events with
+ different modes can coexist within a buffer but the mode in
+ effect when an event is logged determines which timestamp mode
+ is used for that event. The default timestamp mode is
+ 'delta'.
+
+ Usual timestamp modes for tracing:
+
+ # cat timestamp_mode
+ [delta] absolute
+
+ The timestamp mode with the square brackets around it is the
+ one in effect.
+
+ delta: Default timestamp mode - timestamp is a delta against
+ a per-buffer timestamp.
+
+ absolute: The timestamp is a full timestamp, not a delta
+ against some other value. As such it takes up more
+ space and is less efficient.
+
hwlat_detector:
Directory for the Hardware Latency Detector.
--
2.16.1
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Hi all,
On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 15:31:27 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the ftrace tree got a conflict in:
>
> Documentation/trace/ftrace.txt
> (converted to Documentation/trace/ftrace.rst)
There was another conflict involving
Documentation/trace/events.{txt,rst}
Unfortunately, I accidentally deleted the report email before sending
it :-(
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 15:37:15 +1100
Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 15:31:27 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the ftrace tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > Documentation/trace/ftrace.txt
> > (converted to Documentation/trace/ftrace.rst)
>
> There was another conflict involving
>
> Documentation/trace/events.{txt,rst}
>
> Unfortunately, I accidentally deleted the report email before sending
> it :-(
>
Ug yeah. All the histogram code was ripped out of the events.txt and
a new file was created called histogram.txt. I'm guessing that should
also be converted into an .rst file.
-- Steve
On Wed, 2018-03-21 at 09:15 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 15:37:15 +1100
> Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 15:31:27 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the ftrace tree got a conflict in:
> > >
> > > Documentation/trace/ftrace.txt
> > > (converted to Documentation/trace/ftrace.rst)
> >
> > There was another conflict involving
> >
> > Documentation/trace/events.{txt,rst}
> >
> > Unfortunately, I accidentally deleted the report email before sending
> > it :-(
> >
>
> Ug yeah. All the histogram code was ripped out of the events.txt and
> a new file was created called histogram.txt. I'm guessing that should
> also be converted into an .rst file.
>
Yeah, linux-next has changes to Documentation/trace/* that converts
those files to .rst, which linux-trace/frace/core doesn't have.
I've rebased the inter-event patches to linux-next/next-20180320 to
reflect those changes, which affect 9 of the files in the patchset. The
updated patchset is here:
https://github.com/tzanussi/linux-trace-inter-event.git tzanussi/next-20180320-inter-event-v10
https://github.com/tzanussi/linux-trace-inter-event/tree/tzanussi/next-20180320-inter-event-v10
I can repost the whole thing as v10, or whatever makes sense here.
Thanks,
Tom
> -- Steve
Hi Tom,
On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 15:55:52 -0500 Tom Zanussi <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Yeah, linux-next has changes to Documentation/trace/* that converts
> those files to .rst, which linux-trace/frace/core doesn't have.
>
> I've rebased the inter-event patches to linux-next/next-20180320 to
> reflect those changes, which affect 9 of the files in the patchset. The
> updated patchset is here:
>
> https://github.com/tzanussi/linux-trace-inter-event.git tzanussi/next-20180320-inter-event-v10
> https://github.com/tzanussi/linux-trace-inter-event/tree/tzanussi/next-20180320-inter-event-v10
>
> I can repost the whole thing as v10, or whatever makes sense here.
Thanks, I assume that they apply on top of the jc_docs tree as well
(git://git.lwn.net/linux.git#docs-next). If so, then I can use them as
merge resolutions, or Steve can rebase his tree (minus your old
patches) on top of the (hopefully unchanging) jc_docs tree and then he
could apply your patches there.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Hi Stephen,
On Thu, 2018-03-22 at 09:21 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 15:55:52 -0500 Tom Zanussi <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, linux-next has changes to Documentation/trace/* that converts
> > those files to .rst, which linux-trace/frace/core doesn't have.
> >
> > I've rebased the inter-event patches to linux-next/next-20180320 to
> > reflect those changes, which affect 9 of the files in the patchset. The
> > updated patchset is here:
> >
> > https://github.com/tzanussi/linux-trace-inter-event.git tzanussi/next-20180320-inter-event-v10
> > https://github.com/tzanussi/linux-trace-inter-event/tree/tzanussi/next-20180320-inter-event-v10
> >
> > I can repost the whole thing as v10, or whatever makes sense here.
>
> Thanks, I assume that they apply on top of the jc_docs tree as well
> (git://git.lwn.net/linux.git#docs-next). If so, then I can use them as
> merge resolutions, or Steve can rebase his tree (minus your old
> patches) on top of the (hopefully unchanging) jc_docs tree and then he
> could apply your patches there.
>
Yes, just checked and they do apply on top of the jc_docs branch
mentioned.
Thanks,
Tom
On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 09:21:08 +1100
Stephen Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I can repost the whole thing as v10, or whatever makes sense here.
>
> Thanks, I assume that they apply on top of the jc_docs tree as well
> (git://git.lwn.net/linux.git#docs-next). If so, then I can use them as
> merge resolutions, or Steve can rebase his tree (minus your old
> patches) on top of the (hopefully unchanging) jc_docs tree and then he
> could apply your patches there.
Too late for a rebase. I've already run it through my tests and posted,
I don't rebase anything that goes to linux-next unless there's a really
good reason to do so. I don't think this is one.
I'll just make sure Linus knows about it and have a link to point to
the proper end results. He's stated he's fine with those kinds of
solutions. And since this is only a documentation conflict, we don't
need to worry about mistakes causing subtle behavior with the kernel.
-- Steve