Re: [PATCH 1/7] tracing/function-graph-tracer: make arch generic push pop functions

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> > 
> > * Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > Ingo,
> > > 
> > > This patch is to make function graph arch generic. But since 
> > > the PowerPC changes depend on it, we want to push it through 
> > > the PowerPC tree. But since it touches x86 code, can you give 
> > > an Acked-by to it?
> > 
> > hm, but it's all ftrace bits. Could this go through the tracing 
> > tree? That's how it's generally done for most cross-arch 
> > subsystems. By having it in a separate tree we risk conflicts 
> > and various logistics problems. It's not like the PPC tree is 
> > modifying its ftrace.c file all that frequently, right?
> 
> Ingo,
> 
> How about this. We could incorporate some of the power of git. 
> I could make a separate branch based off of Linus's 2.6.29-rc5 
> announcement, and apply just this patch (the ftrace generic 
> and x86 change). If you give me your Acked-by, I'll add that 
> too.
> 
> This way, both you and Ben could pull from this branch to get 
> the one change. When it goes upstream, because it has the same 
> SHA1, git could easily resolve it.

Sure, that's fine too - if the separate tree is semantically 
meaningful. If it pulls in too many ftrace prerequisites i doubt 
it's appropriate for the PPC tree.

	Ingo