* linux-next: manual merge of the ftrace tree with the bpf-next tree
@ 2021-04-20 4:14 Stephen Rothwell
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2021-04-20 4:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Steven Rostedt, Daniel Borkmann, Alexei Starovoitov, Networking
Cc: Florent Revest, Ingo Molnar, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
Linux Next Mailing List
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 775 bytes --]
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the ftrace tree got a conflict in:
kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
between commit:
d9c9e4db186a ("bpf: Factorize bpf_trace_printk and bpf_seq_printf")
from the bpf-next tree and commit:
f2cc020d7876 ("tracing: Fix various typos in comments")
from the ftrace tree.
I fixed it up (the former removed the comment updated by the latter) 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 --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* linux-next: manual merge of the ftrace tree with the bpf-next tree
@ 2025-11-30 22:33 Stephen Rothwell
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2025-11-30 22:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Steven Rostedt, Masami Hiramatsu, Daniel Borkmann,
Alexei Starovoitov, Andrii Nakryiko
Cc: Menglong Dong, Menglong Dong, bpf, Networking,
Linux Kernel Mailing List, Linux Next Mailing List
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1916 bytes --]
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the ftrace tree got a conflict in:
kernel/trace/Kconfig
between commit:
25e4e3565d45 ("ftrace: Introduce FTRACE_OPS_FL_JMP")
from the bpf-next tree and commit:
f93a7d0caccd ("ftrace: Allow tracing of some of the tracing code")
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/Kconfig
index 4661b9e606e0,e1214b9dc990..000000000000
--- a/kernel/trace/Kconfig
+++ b/kernel/trace/Kconfig
@@@ -336,12 -330,20 +336,26 @@@ config DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_ARG
depends on DYNAMIC_FTRACE
depends on HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_ARGS
+config DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_JMP
+ def_bool y
+ depends on DYNAMIC_FTRACE
+ depends on DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_DIRECT_CALLS
+ depends on HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_JMP
+
+ config FUNCTION_SELF_TRACING
+ bool "Function trace tracing code"
+ depends on FUNCTION_TRACER
+ help
+ Normally all the tracing code is set to notrace, where the function
+ tracer will ignore all the tracing functions. Sometimes it is useful
+ for debugging to trace some of the tracing infratructure itself.
+ Enable this to allow some of the tracing infrastructure to be traced
+ by the function tracer. Note, this will likely add noise to function
+ tracing if events and other tracing features are enabled along with
+ function tracing.
+
+ If unsure, say N.
+
config FPROBE
bool "Kernel Function Probe (fprobe)"
depends on HAVE_FUNCTION_GRAPH_FREGS && HAVE_FTRACE_GRAPH_FUNC
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* linux-next: manual merge of the ftrace tree with the bpf-next tree
@ 2026-02-02 14:30 Mark Brown
2026-02-02 16:20 ` Steven Rostedt
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Mark Brown @ 2026-02-02 14:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Steven Rostedt, Masami Hiramatsu
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
Linux Next Mailing List, Puranjay Mohan
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1492 bytes --]
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the ftrace tree got a conflict in:
kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
between commit:
93f0d09697613 ("bpf: move recursion detection logic to helpers")
from the bpf-next tree and commit:
f7d327654b886 ("bpf: Have __bpf_trace_run() use rcu_read_lock_dont_migrate()")
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.
diff --cc kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
index f7baeb8278cac,abbf0177ad20b..0000000000000
--- a/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/bpf_trace.c
@@@ -2076,8 -2062,8 +2076,8 @@@ void __bpf_trace_run(struct bpf_raw_tp_
struct bpf_run_ctx *old_run_ctx;
struct bpf_trace_run_ctx run_ctx;
- cant_sleep();
+ rcu_read_lock_dont_migrate();
- if (unlikely(this_cpu_inc_return(*(prog->active)) != 1)) {
+ if (unlikely(!bpf_prog_get_recursion_context(prog))) {
bpf_prog_inc_misses_counter(prog);
goto out;
}
@@@ -2090,8 -2075,8 +2089,8 @@@
bpf_reset_run_ctx(old_run_ctx);
out:
- this_cpu_dec(*(prog->active));
+ bpf_prog_put_recursion_context(prog);
+ rcu_read_unlock_migrate();
}
#define UNPACK(...) __VA_ARGS__
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the ftrace tree with the bpf-next tree
2026-02-02 14:30 linux-next: manual merge of the ftrace tree with the bpf-next tree Mark Brown
@ 2026-02-02 16:20 ` Steven Rostedt
2026-02-02 16:42 ` Alexei Starovoitov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Steven Rostedt @ 2026-02-02 16:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Brown
Cc: Masami Hiramatsu, Alexei Starovoitov, Linux Kernel Mailing List,
Linux Next Mailing List, Puranjay Mohan
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 14:30:14 +0000
Mark Brown <broonie@kernel•org> wrote:
> 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.
Thanks Mark, the fix looks good to me. The conflict was caused by ftrace
doing a small change that was recommended by Alexei so I hope this isn't a
complex conflict ;-)
-- Steve
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the ftrace tree with the bpf-next tree
2026-02-02 16:20 ` Steven Rostedt
@ 2026-02-02 16:42 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-02-02 17:04 ` Steven Rostedt
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Alexei Starovoitov @ 2026-02-02 16:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Steven Rostedt
Cc: Mark Brown, Masami Hiramatsu, Alexei Starovoitov,
Linux Kernel Mailing List, Linux Next Mailing List,
Puranjay Mohan
On Mon, Feb 2, 2026 at 8:19 AM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis•org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 14:30:14 +0000
> Mark Brown <broonie@kernel•org> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Thanks Mark, the fix looks good to me. The conflict was caused by ftrace
> doing a small change that was recommended by Alexei so I hope this isn't a
> complex conflict ;-)
yep.
Conflict resolution is correct.
I wonder whether we should take the whole srcu_fast in tracepoints
patch set into bpf-next to avoid this conflict ?
Probably not worth it in the last week before the merge window.
Just a thought.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the ftrace tree with the bpf-next tree
2026-02-02 16:42 ` Alexei Starovoitov
@ 2026-02-02 17:04 ` Steven Rostedt
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Steven Rostedt @ 2026-02-02 17:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexei Starovoitov
Cc: Mark Brown, Masami Hiramatsu, Alexei Starovoitov,
Linux Kernel Mailing List, Linux Next Mailing List,
Puranjay Mohan
On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 08:42:55 -0800
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail•com> wrote:
> I wonder whether we should take the whole srcu_fast in tracepoints
> patch set into bpf-next to avoid this conflict ?
> Probably not worth it in the last week before the merge window.
> Just a thought.
It's already in next where it would require a revert to get rid of.
There's just one patch that touches the bpf code, so it still makes more
sense to keep it in the tracing tree.
-- Steve
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2026-02-02 17:04 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2026-02-02 14:30 linux-next: manual merge of the ftrace tree with the bpf-next tree Mark Brown
2026-02-02 16:20 ` Steven Rostedt
2026-02-02 16:42 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-02-02 17:04 ` Steven Rostedt
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2025-11-30 22:33 Stephen Rothwell
2021-04-20 4:14 Stephen Rothwell
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox