Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 11 Apr 2023 12:47:49 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc:     Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org>, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
        will@kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        bpf@vger.kernel.org, mhiramat@kernel.org, ast@kernel.org,
        daniel@iogearbox.net, andrii@kernel.org, kpsingh@kernel.org,
        jolsa@kernel.org, xukuohai@huaweicloud.com, lihuafei1@huawei.com,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/5] Add ftrace direct call for arm64
Message-ID: <20230411124749.7aeea715@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <ZDWDPUY2tZiMbk8V@FVFF77S0Q05N>
References: <20230405180250.2046566-1-revest@chromium.org>
        <ZDWDPUY2tZiMbk8V@FVFF77S0Q05N>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 16:56:45 +0100
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:

> IIUC Steve was hoping to take the FUNCTION_GRAPH_RETVAL series through the
> trace tree, and if that's still the plan, maybe both should go that way?

The conflict is minor, and I think I prefer to still have the ARM64 bits go
through the arm64 tree, as it will get better testing, and I don't like to
merge branches ;-)

I've added Linus to the Cc so he knows that there will be conflicts, but as
long as we mention it in our pull request, with a branch that includes the
solution, it should be fine going through two different trees.

-- Steve