On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org> wrote:
>
> This will conflict with changes I have already sent to you. They may
> not be so trivial to fix. I merged my urgent branch when pushing to
> linux-next. You can look at how I resolved the conflicts in my
> "for-next" branch, specifically sha1:
> f96d18dee6f09486b944b75f6151d36381f396b5
Hmm. My merge resolution is different, but I think I did it right.
Yours does
ret = alloc_snapshot(&global_trace);
and I think it should be
ret = alloc_snapshot(tr);
but you should double-check it. I only looked at the code, I didn't
actually *test* anything.
(There's a few other differences, but they are just ordering of the
function declarations).
Btw, I'd prefer to *not* see the full patch in the pull request if
it's this big. For small stuff, sure. For a multi-thousand-line patch?
I'm not reading those in a mail-reader anyway.
Linus
