All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] arm64: remove redundant FRAME_POINTER kconfig option
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 16:19:00 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151106161859.GS6087@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151106161214.GY7637@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com>

On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 04:12:14PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 12:30:09PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 09:37:51AM -0800, Yang Shi wrote:
> > > FRAME_POINTER is defined in lib/Kconfig.debug, it is unnecessary to redefine
> > > it in arch/arm64/Kconfig.debug.
> > 
> > It might be worth noting that this adds a dependency on DEBUG_KERNEL
> > for building with frame pointers. I'm ok with that (it appears to be
> > enabled in defconfig and follows the vast majority of other archs) but
> > it is a change in behaviour.
> 
> We shouldn't have the dependency on DEBUG_KERNEL since we select
> ARCH_WANT_FRAME_POINTERS on arm64. However, the patch would allow one to
> disable FRAME_POINTERS (not sure it has any effect on the aarch64 gcc
> though).

Ah yes, you're right about DEBUG_KERNEL. I completely misread the brackets
and the left-associativity of &&/|| works out.

I still think Rutland has a valid point wrt junk frame pointers, though.

Will

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Cc: Yang Shi <yang.shi@linaro.org>,
	linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: remove redundant FRAME_POINTER kconfig option
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 16:19:00 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151106161859.GS6087@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151106161214.GY7637@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com>

On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 04:12:14PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 12:30:09PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 09:37:51AM -0800, Yang Shi wrote:
> > > FRAME_POINTER is defined in lib/Kconfig.debug, it is unnecessary to redefine
> > > it in arch/arm64/Kconfig.debug.
> > 
> > It might be worth noting that this adds a dependency on DEBUG_KERNEL
> > for building with frame pointers. I'm ok with that (it appears to be
> > enabled in defconfig and follows the vast majority of other archs) but
> > it is a change in behaviour.
> 
> We shouldn't have the dependency on DEBUG_KERNEL since we select
> ARCH_WANT_FRAME_POINTERS on arm64. However, the patch would allow one to
> disable FRAME_POINTERS (not sure it has any effect on the aarch64 gcc
> though).

Ah yes, you're right about DEBUG_KERNEL. I completely misread the brackets
and the left-associativity of &&/|| works out.

I still think Rutland has a valid point wrt junk frame pointers, though.

Will

  reply	other threads:[~2015-11-06 16:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-11-04 17:37 [PATCH] arm64: remove redundant FRAME_POINTER kconfig option Yang Shi
2015-11-04 17:37 ` Yang Shi
2015-11-06 12:30 ` Will Deacon
2015-11-06 12:30   ` Will Deacon
2015-11-06 12:50   ` Mark Rutland
2015-11-06 12:50     ` Mark Rutland
2015-11-06 15:42     ` Will Deacon
2015-11-06 15:42       ` Will Deacon
2015-11-06 16:21     ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-06 16:21       ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-06 16:25       ` Will Deacon
2015-11-06 16:25         ` Will Deacon
2015-11-06 17:23         ` Shi, Yang
2015-11-06 17:23           ` Shi, Yang
2015-11-06 17:35           ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-06 17:35             ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-06 17:39             ` Shi, Yang
2015-11-06 17:39               ` Shi, Yang
2015-11-06 17:51               ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-06 17:51                 ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-06 17:55                 ` Shi, Yang
2015-11-06 17:55                   ` Shi, Yang
2015-11-09 15:58                   ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-09 15:58                     ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-06 16:12   ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-06 16:12     ` Catalin Marinas
2015-11-06 16:19     ` Will Deacon [this message]
2015-11-06 16:19       ` Will Deacon

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20151106161859.GS6087@arm.com \
    --to=will.deacon@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.