On Tue, 22 Nov 2022 15:13:39 +0000 Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote: > To be honest, we just didn't think to remove static ftrace; I'm happy to remove > that for arm64. Please do. There's no reason for it. The *only* reason I keep it around on x86 is to make sure it still works (for those other architectures developing ftrace). > > That said, I still think it makes sense to change the code to check > CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_ARGS rather than > CONFIG_HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_ARGS, as mentioned below, unless you intend for > that to have an effect on static ftrace on x86? > > Everywhere else with DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_ARGS forces DYNAMIC_FTRACE, so it ends > up equivalent; x86 and arm64 are the only exceptions today. Yeah, looking at the code, I think it does make sense to just use DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_ARGS, as that was created to combine the other two configs anyway. -- Steve
