[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20211213164517.3393671-1-broonie@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 16:45:16 +0000
From: broonie@...nel.org
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
"Madhavan T . Venkataraman" <madvenka@...ux.microsoft.com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the arm64 tree
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in:
arch/arm64/kernel/perf_callchain.c
between commit:
ed876d35a1dc7 ("arm64: Make perf_callchain_kernel() use arch_stack_walk()")
from the arm64 tree and commit:
1c3430516b073 ("perf: Add wrappers for invoking guest callbacks")
from the tip 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 arch/arm64/kernel/perf_callchain.c
index e9b7d99f4e3a0,db04a55cee7e0..0000000000000
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_callchain.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_callchain.c
@@@ -141,7 -147,9 +141,7 @@@ static bool callchain_trace(void *data
void perf_callchain_kernel(struct perf_callchain_entry_ctx *entry,
struct pt_regs *regs)
{
- if (perf_guest_cbs && perf_guest_cbs->is_in_guest()) {
- struct stackframe frame;
-
+ if (perf_guest_state()) {
/* We don't support guest os callchain now */
return;
}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists