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

[Steven Rostedt]

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> 
> * Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 18 Feb 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > * Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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.

Yeah, I'll just make a new branch based off of Linus's 2.6.29-rc5 
announcement, and add the one patch, and not touch it again. This will be 
a simple merge of one patch from a change set that is in both trees.

-- Steve

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/