Hi Steven, Today's linux-next merge of the ftrace tree got conflicts in: include/linux/ftrace.h kernel/trace/trace_functions_graph.c between commit: daa460a88c09 ("ftrace: Only allocate the ret_stack 'fp' field when needed") from the tip tree and commit: 8861dd303cba ("ftrace: Access ret_stack->subtime only in the function profiler") from the ftrace tree. I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly complex conflicts. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell diff --cc include/linux/ftrace.h index 6f93ac46e7f0,1e2b316d6693..000000000000 --- a/include/linux/ftrace.h +++ b/include/linux/ftrace.h @@@ -794,13 -794,10 +794,15 @@@ struct ftrace_ret_stack unsigned long ret; unsigned long func; unsigned long long calltime; + #ifdef CONFIG_FUNCTION_PROFILER unsigned long long subtime; + #endif +#ifdef HAVE_FUNCTION_GRAPH_FP_TEST unsigned long fp; +#endif +#ifdef HAVE_FUNCTION_GRAPH_RET_ADDR_PTR + unsigned long *retp; +#endif }; /* diff --cc kernel/trace/trace_functions_graph.c index 0cbe38a844fa,148c90f1e49b..000000000000 --- a/kernel/trace/trace_functions_graph.c +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_functions_graph.c @@@ -170,13 -170,7 +170,12 @@@ ftrace_push_return_trace(unsigned long current->ret_stack[index].ret = ret; current->ret_stack[index].func = func; current->ret_stack[index].calltime = calltime; - current->ret_stack[index].subtime = 0; +#ifdef HAVE_FUNCTION_GRAPH_FP_TEST current->ret_stack[index].fp = frame_pointer; +#endif +#ifdef HAVE_FUNCTION_GRAPH_RET_ADDR_PTR + current->ret_stack[index].retp = retp; +#endif *depth = current->curr_ret_stack; return 0;
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1655 bytes --] Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the ftrace tree got a conflict in: kernel/trace/trace_export.c between commit: 60fdad00827c ("ftrace: Rework event_create_dir()") from the tip tree and commit: 6dff4d7dd3e0 ("tracing: Make internal ftrace events static") from the ftrace tree. I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly complex conflicts. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell diff --cc kernel/trace/trace_export.c index 6d64c1c19fd5,2e6d2e9741cc..000000000000 --- a/kernel/trace/trace_export.c +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_export.c @@@ -142,10 -168,12 +142,10 @@@ static struct trace_event_fields ftrace #define F_printk(fmt, args...) __stringify(fmt) ", " __stringify(args) #undef FTRACE_ENTRY_REG -#define FTRACE_ENTRY_REG(call, struct_name, etype, tstruct, print, filter,\ - regfn) \ - \ +#define FTRACE_ENTRY_REG(call, struct_name, etype, tstruct, print, regfn) \ - struct trace_event_class __refdata event_class_ftrace_##call = { \ + static struct trace_event_class __refdata event_class_ftrace_##call = { \ .system = __stringify(TRACE_SYSTEM), \ - .define_fields = ftrace_define_fields_##call, \ + .fields_array = ftrace_event_fields_##call, \ .fields = LIST_HEAD_INIT(event_class_ftrace_##call.fields),\ .reg = regfn, \ }; \ [-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1929 bytes --] Hi all, On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 15:10:40 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote: > > Today's linux-next merge of the ftrace tree got a conflict in: > > kernel/trace/trace_export.c > > between commit: > > 60fdad00827c ("ftrace: Rework event_create_dir()") > > from the tip tree and commit: > > 6dff4d7dd3e0 ("tracing: Make internal ftrace events static") > > from the ftrace tree. > > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This > is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial > conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree > is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating > with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly > complex conflicts. > > -- > Cheers, > Stephen Rothwell > > diff --cc kernel/trace/trace_export.c > index 6d64c1c19fd5,2e6d2e9741cc..000000000000 > --- a/kernel/trace/trace_export.c > +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_export.c > @@@ -142,10 -168,12 +142,10 @@@ static struct trace_event_fields ftrace > #define F_printk(fmt, args...) __stringify(fmt) ", " __stringify(args) > > #undef FTRACE_ENTRY_REG > -#define FTRACE_ENTRY_REG(call, struct_name, etype, tstruct, print, filter,\ > - regfn) \ > - \ > +#define FTRACE_ENTRY_REG(call, struct_name, etype, tstruct, print, regfn) \ > - struct trace_event_class __refdata event_class_ftrace_##call = { \ > + static struct trace_event_class __refdata event_class_ftrace_##call = { \ > .system = __stringify(TRACE_SYSTEM), \ > - .define_fields = ftrace_define_fields_##call, \ > + .fields_array = ftrace_event_fields_##call, \ > .fields = LIST_HEAD_INIT(event_class_ftrace_##call.fields),\ > .reg = regfn, \ > }; \ This is now a conflict between the tip tree and Linus' tree. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell [-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 11:47:04 +1100
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 15:10:40 +1100 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the ftrace tree got a conflict in:
> >
> > kernel/trace/trace_export.c
> >
> > between commit:
> >
> > 60fdad00827c ("ftrace: Rework event_create_dir()")
> >
> > from the tip tree and commit:
> >
> > 6dff4d7dd3e0 ("tracing: Make internal ftrace events static")
> >
> > from the ftrace tree.
> >
> > I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
> > is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> > conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> > is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
> > with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> > complex conflicts.
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> > Stephen Rothwell
> >
> > diff --cc kernel/trace/trace_export.c
> > index 6d64c1c19fd5,2e6d2e9741cc..000000000000
> > --- a/kernel/trace/trace_export.c
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_export.c
> > @@@ -142,10 -168,12 +142,10 @@@ static struct trace_event_fields ftrace
> > #define F_printk(fmt, args...) __stringify(fmt) ", " __stringify(args)
> >
> > #undef FTRACE_ENTRY_REG
> > -#define FTRACE_ENTRY_REG(call, struct_name, etype, tstruct, print, filter,\
> > - regfn) \
> > - \
> > +#define FTRACE_ENTRY_REG(call, struct_name, etype, tstruct, print, regfn) \
> > - struct trace_event_class __refdata event_class_ftrace_##call = { \
> > + static struct trace_event_class __refdata event_class_ftrace_##call = { \
> > .system = __stringify(TRACE_SYSTEM), \
> > - .define_fields = ftrace_define_fields_##call, \
> > + .fields_array = ftrace_event_fields_##call, \
> > .fields = LIST_HEAD_INIT(event_class_ftrace_##call.fields),\
> > .reg = regfn, \
> > }; \
>
> This is now a conflict between the tip tree and Linus' tree.
This looks to be a trivial conflict, as the change in the ftrace (now
Linus's) tree just makes event_class_ftrace_##call static, and
shouldn't interfere with the changes in tip.
-- Steve
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 786 bytes --] Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the ftrace tree got a conflict in: arch/x86/kernel/kprobes/ftrace.c between commit: d9f6e12fb0b7 ("x86: Fix various typos in comments") from the tip tree and commit: e0196ae73234 ("ftrace: Fix spelling mistake "disabed" -> "disabled"") from the ftrace tree. I fixed it up (I used the former - it fixed a second typo in the same comment) and can carry the fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly complex conflicts. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell [-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 762 bytes --] Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the ftrace tree got a conflict in: kernel/kprobes.c between commit: 670721c7bd2a ("sched: Move kprobes cleanup out of finish_task_switch()") from the tip tree and commit: 223a76b268c9 ("kprobes: Fix coding style issues") from the ftrace tree. I fixed it up (I just used the former version of the changed comment) and can carry the fix as necessary. This is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly complex conflicts. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell [-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]