From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754458Ab0ERC2K (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 May 2010 22:28:10 -0400 Received: from mail-ww0-f46.google.com ([74.125.82.46]:59859 "EHLO mail-ww0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754272Ab0ERC2H (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 May 2010 22:28:07 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=nrfagL+r9Ia9C7NPXUljbgMfPeYO8MU1ZDUO859NOLyOzPdhkaQSkp0n1abldPAtsR CcX6oKXlEcBLm+3BT6BMq6L/Ep74/vqIfsl7dgbnNbUK+FrUmg1NJ0QI80HpT4yeNLbU ekmLF0FSFlJqXTWBRnNFDdk4tcZwGGKemVZbk= Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 04:28:12 +0200 From: Frederic Weisbecker To: Steven Rostedt Cc: LKML , Peter Zijlstra , Masami Hiramatsu , Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: Conflict between tip/tracing/core and tip/perf/core Message-ID: <20100518022809.GC5359@nowhere> References: <1274122242.26328.375.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1274122242.26328.375.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 02:50:42PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > Hi, > > Ingo asked me to resolve a conflict between tip/tracing/core and > perf/core, and I came up with the below solution. > > The conflict stems from the shrinking of TRACE_EVENT(), which affects > both ftrace and perf (saves size on both too). It conflicts with: > > 6cc8a7c1d8560c042f486b23318a6291569ab96b > Author: Frederic Weisbecker > Date: Fri Mar 19 01:23:53 2010 +0100 > perf: Fetch hot regs from the template caller > > > The shrinking code removed the per event caller to the template > (TRACE_CLASS). This was done because the shrinking code allows the trace > event to be passed to the tracepoint probe, and removed the need to have > a separate function for every event because the class can now have the > event passed to it. > > The conflicting code added the regs to the per event probe, which no > longer exists. > > Masami, > > It also conflicted with the kprobe code, which is also in the fix up. > > > Here's my conflict resolution: > > is everyone fine with it? > > -- Steve Yep, no problem with it, Acked-by: Frederic Weisbecker Nothing related to this conflict resolution, but we have these per cpu regs that are racy against NMI, I'll need to solve that soon. Thanks.