From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753416AbZBRMyF (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Feb 2009 07:54:05 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751989AbZBRMxz (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Feb 2009 07:53:55 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:38282 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751741AbZBRMxy (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Feb 2009 07:53:54 -0500 Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:53:34 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Steven Rostedt Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , Andrew Morton , Frederic Weisbecker , Geoff Levand , LKML , Steven Rostedt Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] tracing/function-graph-tracer: make arch generic push pop functions Message-ID: <20090218125334.GA1300@elte.hu> References: <20090213052358.524970112@goodmis.org> <20090213053004.787392572@goodmis.org> <20090218010039.GL25856@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > * Steven Rostedt 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