Re: [PATCH 0/7] Porting dynmaic ftrace to PowerPC

[Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>]

Ingo Molnar writes:

> * Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> > 
> > > Steven Rostedt writes:
> > > 
> > > > Can I add your Acked-by: to all these patches that I submitted? I'm going 
> > > > to recommit them with a consistent subject (all lower case ppc), but I'm 
> > > > not going to change the patches themselves.
> > > > 
> > > > Would you two be fine with that? Or at least one of you?
> > > 
> > > My preference would be for the patches to go through the powerpc tree
> > > unless there is a good reason for them to go via another tree.
> > 
> > I have no problem with that. The only thing is that we have a lot of 
> > pending work still in the linux-tip tree, which you may need to pull 
> > in to get these patches working. Well, there's two or three commits 
> > in the generic code that I know the PPC code is dependent on.
> > 
> > I could give you a list of commits in tip that need to go mainline 
> > first before we can pull in the PPC changes. Then you could wait 
> > till those changes make it into 29 and then you could push the PPC 
> > modifications in from your tree.
> 
> note that this inserts a lot of (unnecessary) serialization and a 
> window of non-testing - by all likelyhood this will delay ppc ftrace 
> to v2.6.30 or later kernels.

Well, note that I said "unless there is a good reason".  If it does
need to go via your tree, it can, though I don't see that it will get
much testing on powerpc there, and having it there will make it harder
to manage any conflicts with the other stuff I have queued up.

How much generic stuff that's not upstream do the powerpc ftrace
patches depend on?

Paul.