From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD712C433EF for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 11:38:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4JwBTJ0Kn6z3bcF for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 22:38:44 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=Kyp1VP9K; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=none (no SPF record) smtp.mailfrom=linux.vnet.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.156.1; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=Kyp1VP9K; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4JwBST1gW6z3bVf for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 22:38:00 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0187473.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 21B8MiZa001247; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 11:37:07 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=date : from : subject : to : cc : references : in-reply-to : mime-version : message-id : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=MWlKOgEikHFkQbZ2J6EozVGERprdr0dxmmmtMQPQ/GI=; b=Kyp1VP9KrRAJxQAU+eXEildp/HeeuivZoTcQt3tNy3crG1ZqqpsvadLHKDG76Dj6Ec0E Qt6UUUNfkyY919jTCzCm3dzVJm1z8AbsX+RY/ULK6+USaKSo5Pk2oWJjHE7QBkDISQtD /QWtUg44Cqe5DyUB66mXKStFLg0V5zXFUbWXU0j4dI2CLuNtZIhToXWa2GNejqzBxm/b xjBlI5i7sZZ+dTjSg94Aj+avXVdHWmGt5lQgy9suAvLLQ7qQZsEI334O4zlEFYbGRf7s JPzEZflp8TfuTXRAxJjoCie//O7hJw3/KLVhP6t8zPdbyawFzv7KyXJXECGQXFZ+pMTM uA== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3e59swe05y-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 11 Feb 2022 11:37:07 +0000 Received: from m0187473.ppops.net (m0187473.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 21BBMqah008544; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 11:37:06 GMT Received: from ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com (66.31.33a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.51.49.102]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3e59swe04w-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 11 Feb 2022 11:37:06 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 21BBW7aM031482; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 11:37:03 GMT Received: from b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay10.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.195]) by ppma06ams.nl.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3e1ggks99e-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 11 Feb 2022 11:37:03 +0000 Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.62]) by b06cxnps3075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 21BBb1oT39125434 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 11 Feb 2022 11:37:01 GMT Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F448AE045; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 11:37:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00F84AE04D; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 11:37:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost (unknown [9.43.26.72]) by d06av26.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 Feb 2022 11:37:00 +0000 (GMT) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2022 17:06:59 +0530 From: "Naveen N. Rao" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/3] powerpc/ftrace: Override ftrace_location_lookup() for MPROFILE_KERNEL To: Steven Rostedt References: <20220207102454.41b1d6b5@gandalf.local.home> <1644426751.786cjrgqey.naveen@linux.ibm.com> <20220209161017.2bbdb01a@gandalf.local.home> <1644501274.apfdo9z1hy.naveen@linux.ibm.com> <20220210095944.1fe98b74@gandalf.local.home> <1644508338.5ucomwqtts.naveen@linux.ibm.com> <20220210120152.00d24b64@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20220210120152.00d24b64@gandalf.local.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: astroid/4d6b06ad (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid) Message-Id: <1644579392.dotfvngs71.naveen@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: aXE9rOkXWLfOtWMO1n9rJTvmZrqufkyp X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: THFEPOkaLdLyov42li4LOlLizcBY7b16 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.816,Hydra:6.0.425,FMLib:17.11.62.513 definitions=2022-02-11_04,2022-02-11_01,2021-12-02_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 priorityscore=1501 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 mlxlogscore=999 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 bulkscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxscore=0 phishscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2201110000 definitions=main-2202110066 X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Daniel Borkmann , Yauheni Kaliuta , Jordan Niethe , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org, Jiri Olsa , Alexei Starovoitov , Hari Bathini Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Thu, 10 Feb 2022 16:40:28 +0000 > "Naveen N. Rao" wrote: >=20 >> The other option is to mark ftrace_cmp_recs() as a __weak function, but=20 >> I have a vague recollection of you suggesting #ifdef rather than a=20 >> __weak function in the past. I might be mis-remembering, so if you think= =20 >> making this a __weak function is better, I can do that. >=20 > No. If I wanted that I would have suggested it. I think this is the > prettiest of the ugly solutions out there ;-) Understood :) >=20 > As I said, I can't think of a better solution, and we can go with this > until something else comes along. Thanks, - Naveen