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 13:44:56 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To:     Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Florent Revest <revest@chromium.org>, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
        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: <20230411134456.728551f8@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <20230411170807.GA23143@willie-the-truck>
References: <20230405180250.2046566-1-revest@chromium.org>
        <ZDWDPUY2tZiMbk8V@FVFF77S0Q05N>
        <20230411124749.7aeea715@gandalf.local.home>
        <20230411170807.GA23143@willie-the-truck>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 18:08:08 +0100
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 12:47:49PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > 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.  
> 
> If it's just the simple asm-offsets conflict that Mark mentioned, then that
> sounds fine to me. However, patches 3-5 don't seem to have anything to do

I guess 3 and 5 are not, but patch 4 adds arm64 code to the samples (as
it requires arch specific asm to handle the direct trampolines).

> with arm64 at all and I'd prefer those to go via other trees (esp. as patch
> 3 is an independent -stable candidate and the last one is a bpf selftest
> change which conflicts in -next).
> 
> So I'll queue the first two in arm64 on a branch (or-next/ftrace) based
> on trace-direct-v6.3-rc3.

Are 3-5 dependent on those changes? If not, I can pull them into my tree.

-- Steve