Re: [PATCH v6 0/5] Add ftrace direct call for arm64

[Will Deacon]

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@xxxxxxx> 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
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.

Will