From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: rostedt@goodmis.org (Steven Rostedt)
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2018 22:03:15 -0400
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] arm64: implement ftrace with regs
In-Reply-To: <2b5c1092-2cc0-00ec-ba3d-341dc61452b4@arm.com>
References: <20180810160043.9E45568C76@newverein.lst.de>
 <20180810160223.D360D68C76@newverein.lst.de>
 <2b5c1092-2cc0-00ec-ba3d-341dc61452b4@arm.com>
Message-ID: <20180813220315.6e8dfc9c@vmware.local.home>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Mon, 13 Aug 2018 11:54:06 +0100
Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@arm.com> wrote:

> > --- a/arch/arm64/Makefile
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/Makefile
> > @@ -78,6 +78,15 @@ ifeq ($(CONFIG_ARM64_MODULE_PLTS),y)
> >   KBUILD_LDFLAGS_MODULE	+= -T $(srctree)/arch/arm64/kernel/module.lds
> >   endif
> >   
> > +ifdef CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS
> > +  CC_FLAGS_FTRACE := -fpatchable-function-entry=2
> > +  KBUILD_CPPFLAGS += -DCC_USING_PATCHABLE_FUNCTION_ENTRY
> > +  ifeq ($(call cc-option,-fpatchable-function-entry=2),)
> > +    $(warning Cannot use CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS: \
> > +             -fpatchable-function-entry not supported by compiler)  
> 
> Shouldn't this be an error? The option -fpatchable-function-entry has 
> been added to the CC_FLAGS_FTRACE, so any call to the compiler is gonna 
> break anyway. Or am I missing something?

I'm guessing this adds a more informative message on that error. One
will know why -fpatchable-function-entry was added to the CFLAGS. I'm
for more informative error messages being a victim of poor error
messages causing me to dig deep into the guts of the build
infrastructure to figure out simple issues.

-- Steve