Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 18 Feb 2009 13:53:34 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/7] tracing/function-graph-tracer: make arch generic push pop functions |
| |
* 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
| |