Hi Steven,
On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 22:42:15 -0400 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 21:11:19 -0500
> "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 12:54:46PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > > --- a/include/linux/ftrace.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/ftrace.h
> > > > @@ -45,6 +45,7 @@ struct ftrace_ops;
> > > > void arch_ftrace_ops_list_func(unsigned long ip, unsigned long parent_ip);
> > > > #else
> > > > # define FTRACE_FORCE_LIST_FUNC 0
> > > > +struct ftrace_regs;
> > > > void arch_ftrace_ops_list_func(unsigned long ip, unsigned long parent_ip,
> > > > struct ftrace_ops *op, struct ftrace_regs *fregs);
> > > > #endif
> > > > --
> > > > 2.33.0
> > >
> > > I am still applying this fix ...
> >
> > I will add this fix to the original patch for my tomorrow's -next tree.
>
> Hmm, I pushed my version to my for-next branch. Do you have this in the
> next tree?
>
> 34cdd18b8d245f3e901e5325 ("tracing: Use linker magic instead of recasting
> ftrace_ops_list_func()")
>
> Which shouldn't need this fix.
Well, that is in your tree today, but (1) doesn't help with the build
failure in Gustavo's tree on its own (i.e. it creates a dependency
between Gustavo's tree and your tree) and (2) now I will get a conflict
between the two trees today. Oh, well.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Attachment:
pgp7Budttpu5J.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
