On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 10:30:42AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > 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). I've sent that out as: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20221122163624.1225912-1-mark.rutland@xxxxxxx/T/#u ... on the assumption Will can queue that as a fixup. > > 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. Great; I'll follow up with a cleanup patch once the above has settled. Thanks, Mark.
