* linux-next: manual merge of the tracing tree with the parisc tree
@ 2009-04-01 0:37 Stephen Rothwell
2009-04-01 6:54 ` Uwe Kleine-König
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2009-04-01 0:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, H. Peter Anvin
Cc: linux-next, Helge Deller, Kyle McMartin, linux-parisc,
Uwe Kleine-Koenig, Steven Rostedt
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 552 bytes --]
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the tracing tree got a conflict in
arch/parisc/include/asm/ftrace.h between commit
d75f054a2cf0614ff63d534ff21ca8eaab41e713 ("parisc: add ftrace (function
and graph tracer) functionality") from the parisc tree and commit
c79a61f55773d2519fd0525bf58385f7d20752d3 ("tracing: make CALLER_ADDRx
overwriteable") from the tracing tree.
The former adds a non-trivial version of the file, so I used that.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb•auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tracing tree with the parisc tree
2009-04-01 0:37 linux-next: manual merge of the tracing tree with the parisc tree Stephen Rothwell
@ 2009-04-01 6:54 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2009-04-01 11:05 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-01 17:50 ` Kyle McMartin
2 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Uwe Kleine-König @ 2009-04-01 6:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Rothwell
Cc: Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, H. Peter Anvin, linux-next,
Helge Deller, Kyle McMartin, linux-parisc, Steven Rostedt
Hi Steven,
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 11:37:40AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Today's linux-next merge of the tracing tree got a conflict in
> arch/parisc/include/asm/ftrace.h between commit
> d75f054a2cf0614ff63d534ff21ca8eaab41e713 ("parisc: add ftrace (function
> and graph tracer) functionality") from the parisc tree and commit
> c79a61f55773d2519fd0525bf58385f7d20752d3 ("tracing: make CALLER_ADDRx
> overwriteable") from the tracing tree.
Whatever you have done---I didn't check---as long as
arch/parisc/include/asm/ftrace.h exists, it's OK for
c79a61f55773d2519fd0525bf58385f7d20752d3.
Best regards and thanks
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tracing tree with the parisc tree
2009-04-01 0:37 linux-next: manual merge of the tracing tree with the parisc tree Stephen Rothwell
2009-04-01 6:54 ` Uwe Kleine-König
@ 2009-04-01 11:05 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-01 11:10 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2009-04-01 17:50 ` Kyle McMartin
2 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Ingo Molnar @ 2009-04-01 11:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Rothwell
Cc: Thomas Gleixner, H. Peter Anvin, linux-next, Helge Deller,
Kyle McMartin, linux-parisc, Uwe Kleine-Koenig, Steven Rostedt
* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb•auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the tracing tree got a conflict in
> arch/parisc/include/asm/ftrace.h between commit
> d75f054a2cf0614ff63d534ff21ca8eaab41e713 ("parisc: add ftrace (function
> and graph tracer) functionality") from the parisc tree and commit
> c79a61f55773d2519fd0525bf58385f7d20752d3 ("tracing: make CALLER_ADDRx
> overwriteable") from the tracing tree.
>
> The former adds a non-trivial version of the file, so I used that.
You need to be careful, the two trees likely cannot be combined like
that, ftrace will likely stop working on parisc because you combine
old-parisc with new-ftrace.
If the two trees are integrated without forward-porting the parisc
ftrace port to the new facilities, then it's safer to do a trivial
patch that disables the ftrace bits on parisc.
Ingo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tracing tree with the parisc tree
2009-04-01 11:05 ` Ingo Molnar
@ 2009-04-01 11:10 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2009-04-01 11:19 ` Ingo Molnar
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Uwe Kleine-König @ 2009-04-01 11:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ingo Molnar
Cc: Stephen Rothwell, Thomas Gleixner, H. Peter Anvin, linux-next,
Helge Deller, Kyle McMartin, linux-parisc, Steven Rostedt
Hello Ingo,
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 01:05:12PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb•auug.org.au> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the tracing tree got a conflict in
> > arch/parisc/include/asm/ftrace.h between commit
> > d75f054a2cf0614ff63d534ff21ca8eaab41e713 ("parisc: add ftrace (function
> > and graph tracer) functionality") from the parisc tree and commit
> > c79a61f55773d2519fd0525bf58385f7d20752d3 ("tracing: make CALLER_ADDRx
> > overwriteable") from the tracing tree.
> >
> > The former adds a non-trivial version of the file, so I used that.
>
> You need to be careful, the two trees likely cannot be combined like
> that, ftrace will likely stop working on parisc because you combine
> old-parisc with new-ftrace.
>
> If the two trees are integrated without forward-porting the parisc
> ftrace port to the new facilities, then it's safer to do a trivial
> patch that disables the ftrace bits on parisc.
I'm not sure that they really conflict. My change ("tracing: make
CALLER_ADDRx overwriteable") only created the empty include file that I
can unconditionally include <asm/ftrace.h>.
But I don't know for sure.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tracing tree with the parisc tree
2009-04-01 11:10 ` Uwe Kleine-König
@ 2009-04-01 11:19 ` Ingo Molnar
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Ingo Molnar @ 2009-04-01 11:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Uwe Kleine-König
Cc: Stephen Rothwell, Thomas Gleixner, H. Peter Anvin, linux-next,
Helge Deller, Kyle McMartin, linux-parisc, Steven Rostedt
* Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix•de> wrote:
> Hello Ingo,
>
> On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 01:05:12PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb•auug.org.au> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the tracing tree got a conflict in
> > > arch/parisc/include/asm/ftrace.h between commit
> > > d75f054a2cf0614ff63d534ff21ca8eaab41e713 ("parisc: add ftrace (function
> > > and graph tracer) functionality") from the parisc tree and commit
> > > c79a61f55773d2519fd0525bf58385f7d20752d3 ("tracing: make CALLER_ADDRx
> > > overwriteable") from the tracing tree.
> > >
> > > The former adds a non-trivial version of the file, so I used that.
> >
> > You need to be careful, the two trees likely cannot be combined like
> > that, ftrace will likely stop working on parisc because you combine
> > old-parisc with new-ftrace.
> >
> > If the two trees are integrated without forward-porting the parisc
> > ftrace port to the new facilities, then it's safer to do a trivial
> > patch that disables the ftrace bits on parisc.
>
> I'm not sure that they really conflict. My change ("tracing: make
> CALLER_ADDRx overwriteable") only created the empty include file
> that I can unconditionally include <asm/ftrace.h>.
I know, that commit is not a problem. It just exposed the problem
that these trees got combined in linux-next.
Ingo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tracing tree with the parisc tree
2009-04-01 0:37 linux-next: manual merge of the tracing tree with the parisc tree Stephen Rothwell
2009-04-01 6:54 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2009-04-01 11:05 ` Ingo Molnar
@ 2009-04-01 17:50 ` Kyle McMartin
2009-04-02 11:32 ` Stephen Rothwell
2 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Kyle McMartin @ 2009-04-01 17:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Rothwell
Cc: Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, H. Peter Anvin, linux-next,
Helge Deller, Kyle McMartin, linux-parisc, Uwe Kleine-Koenig,
Steven Rostedt
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 11:37:40AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the tracing tree got a conflict in
> arch/parisc/include/asm/ftrace.h between commit
> d75f054a2cf0614ff63d534ff21ca8eaab41e713 ("parisc: add ftrace (function
> and graph tracer) functionality") from the parisc tree and commit
> c79a61f55773d2519fd0525bf58385f7d20752d3 ("tracing: make CALLER_ADDRx
> overwriteable") from the tracing tree.
>
> The former adds a non-trivial version of the file, so I used that.
>
Thanks Stephen,
What's the optimal way to sort out multiple branches in this tree?
Apparently Andrew is cross with me because the rtc-parisc branch didn't
get picked up... Should I put a list of branches in my kernel.org
public_html or something?
r, Kyle
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tracing tree with the parisc tree
2009-04-01 17:50 ` Kyle McMartin
@ 2009-04-02 11:32 ` Stephen Rothwell
2009-04-02 13:54 ` James Bottomley
2009-04-03 14:15 ` Ingo Molnar
0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2009-04-02 11:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kyle McMartin
Cc: Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, H. Peter Anvin, linux-next,
Helge Deller, linux-parisc, Uwe Kleine-Koenig, Steven Rostedt
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 619 bytes --]
Hi Kyle,
On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 13:50:34 -0400 Kyle McMartin <kyle@mcmartin•ca> wrote:
>
> What's the optimal way to sort out multiple branches in this tree?
> Apparently Andrew is cross with me because the rtc-parisc branch didn't
> get picked up... Should I put a list of branches in my kernel.org
> public_html or something?
I am not quite sure what you are getting at. If you have multiple trees
(or branches in a tree), I can merge them separately into linux-next -
just tell me what they are.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb•auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tracing tree with the parisc tree
2009-04-02 11:32 ` Stephen Rothwell
@ 2009-04-02 13:54 ` James Bottomley
2009-04-02 15:22 ` Kyle McMartin
2009-04-03 14:15 ` Ingo Molnar
1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: James Bottomley @ 2009-04-02 13:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Rothwell
Cc: Kyle McMartin, Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, H. Peter Anvin,
linux-next, Helge Deller, linux-parisc, Uwe Kleine-Koenig,
Steven Rostedt
On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 22:32 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Kyle,
>
> On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 13:50:34 -0400 Kyle McMartin <kyle@mcmartin•ca> wrote:
> >
> > What's the optimal way to sort out multiple branches in this tree?
> > Apparently Andrew is cross with me because the rtc-parisc branch didn't
> > get picked up... Should I put a list of branches in my kernel.org
> > public_html or something?
>
> I am not quite sure what you are getting at. If you have multiple trees
> (or branches in a tree), I can merge them separately into linux-next -
> just tell me what they are.
Actually, the traditional way for a multi branch tree (something like
Jens' Block tree) which contains all manner of branches, some of which
are experimental and shouldn't be in linux-next, is to have a next
branch into which you manually merge all branches that should be
included.
James
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tracing tree with the parisc tree
2009-04-02 13:54 ` James Bottomley
@ 2009-04-02 15:22 ` Kyle McMartin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Kyle McMartin @ 2009-04-02 15:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: James Bottomley
Cc: Stephen Rothwell, Kyle McMartin, Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar,
H. Peter Anvin, linux-next, Helge Deller, linux-parisc,
Uwe Kleine-Koenig, Steven Rostedt
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 01:54:43PM +0000, James Bottomley wrote:
> Actually, the traditional way for a multi branch tree (something like
> Jens' Block tree) which contains all manner of branches, some of which
> are experimental and shouldn't be in linux-next, is to have a next
> branch into which you manually merge all branches that should be
> included.
>
> James
>
Heh, that makes sense. Occam's Razor, I guess.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tracing tree with the parisc tree
2009-04-02 11:32 ` Stephen Rothwell
2009-04-02 13:54 ` James Bottomley
@ 2009-04-03 14:15 ` Ingo Molnar
1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Ingo Molnar @ 2009-04-03 14:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Rothwell
Cc: Kyle McMartin, Thomas Gleixner, H. Peter Anvin, linux-next,
Helge Deller, linux-parisc, Uwe Kleine-Koenig, Steven Rostedt,
linux-kernel
* Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb•auug.org.au> wrote:
> Hi Kyle,
>
> On Wed, 1 Apr 2009 13:50:34 -0400 Kyle McMartin <kyle@mcmartin•ca> wrote:
> >
> > What's the optimal way to sort out multiple branches in this
> > tree? Apparently Andrew is cross with me because the rtc-parisc
> > branch didn't get picked up... Should I put a list of branches
> > in my kernel.org public_html or something?
>
> I am not quite sure what you are getting at. If you have multiple
> trees (or branches in a tree), I can merge them separately into
> linux-next - just tell me what they are.
One solution, when there are lots of branches, is what we use in the
-tip tree to auto-integrate the auto-*-next output branches.
It works like this:
For each output auto-*-next tree (there's 19 at the moment) there's
a special file under the tip:tip/.tip/auto-branches/ directory.
Say the auto-tracing-next tree is represented via a list of topic
branches in .tip/auto-branches/auto-tracing-next:
tracing/core
tracing/urgent
tracing/ftrace
tracing/mmiotrace
tracing/sysprof
tracing/nmisafe
tracing/stack-tracer
tracing/fastboot
tracing/markers
tracing/ring-buffer
tracing/pipe
tracing/tracepoints
tracing/core-v2
tracing/fastboot-v2
tracing/core-v3
tracing/function-return-tracer
tracing/branch-tracer
# dont know yet:
# tracing/dump-tracer
tracing/options
tracing/profiling
tracing/power-tracer
tracing/powerpc
# broken right now:
# tracing/hw-branch-tracing
tracing/function-graph-tracer
tracing/blktrace
tracing/graph-tracer
tracing/docs
tracing/kmemtrace
tracing/kmemtrace2
tracing/printk
tracing/doc
tracing/syscalls
tracing/syscalls
tracing/filters
tracing/tasks
tracing/kprobes
tracing/hw-breakpoints
tracing/blktrace-v2
tracing/kmemtrace-v2
When things are quiet and there are no known regressions, i type:
tip-integrate auto-tracing-next
and soon afterwards a new tree comes out. I dont have to do any
manual integration, it's all automated, including the cached
resolution of conflicts. If a new conflict comes up i get a shell
prompt, fix the conflict, commit it and the integration continues.
If i'm happy with the end result i push it out.
As you can see it above, branches can be annotated and commented
out. For example this branch:
# broken right now:
#tracing/hw-branch-tracing
was causing boot crashes so we excluded it from the
auto-tracing-next output and linux-next wont crash due to these
known and under-development problems.
Another branch:
# dont know yet:
# tracing/dump-tracer
Is holding commits i'm not sure we want to push upstream yet, so we
dont push it into linux-next. (linux-next is meant for items that
are intended for the next cycle.)
There's a similar list of topics for the other integration trees:
auto-core-next auto-latest auto-stackprotector-next
auto-cpus4096-next auto-oprofile-next auto-timers-next
auto-fastboot-next auto-perfcounters-next auto-tracing-next
auto-generic-ipi-next auto-rt-next auto-warnings-next
auto-genirq-next auto-safe-poison-pointers-next auto-x86-next
auto-iommu-next auto-sched-next
auto-kmemcheck-next auto-sparseirq-next
Over 100 topic branches are active typically just before the merge
window - they go down to below 10 after the merge window. So there's
a constant ebb and flow in topic activity.
We also have a "tip-integrate-all" script that runs through all the
-next branches and integrates them.
These tools can be found under the -tip:.tip/bin/ directory -
there's currently 68 utility scripts there currently, to solve
various probems all around integration tree maintenance, problems
which are often not solved by the base Git toolset adequately.
Hope this helps,
Ingo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-04-03 14:15 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-04-01 0:37 linux-next: manual merge of the tracing tree with the parisc tree Stephen Rothwell
2009-04-01 6:54 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2009-04-01 11:05 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-01 11:10 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2009-04-01 11:19 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-01 17:50 ` Kyle McMartin
2009-04-02 11:32 ` Stephen Rothwell
2009-04-02 13:54 ` James Bottomley
2009-04-02 15:22 ` Kyle McMartin
2009-04-03 14:15 ` Ingo Molnar
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox