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

[Will Deacon]

On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 01:44:56PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 18:08:08 +0100
> Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > 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
> 
> I guess 3 and 5 are not, but patch 4 adds arm64 code to the samples (as
> it requires arch specific asm to handle the direct trampolines).

Sorry, yes, I was thinking of arch/arm64/ and then failed spectacularly
at communicating :)

> > 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.
> 
> Are 3-5 dependent on those changes? If not, I can pull them into my tree.

Good question. Florent?

Will