Re: [trace:ftrace/core 1/3] include/trace/syscall.h:39:6: error: 'TIF_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT' undeclared

[Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>]

On 06/18, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 21:17:37 -0400
> Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 21:15:59 -0400
> > Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 03:25:46 +0800
> > > kbuild test robot <fengguang.wu@intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > tree:   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rostedt/linux-trace.git ftrace/core
> > > > head:   72fa1a896d8ef355e81270667803ceb16a3dd13f
> > > > commit: 32def52ce8faec72c353b6304ca98176687e18f1 [1/3] tracing: Fix syscall_*regfunc() vs copy_process() race
> > > > config: make ARCH=xtensa allyesconfig
> > > >
> > > > All error/warnings:
> > > >
> > > >    In file included from include/linux/syscalls.h:80:0,
> > > >                     from fs/ecryptfs/keystore.c:29:
> > > >    include/trace/syscall.h: In function 'syscall_tracepoint_update':
> > > > >> include/trace/syscall.h:39:6: error: 'TIF_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT' undeclared (first use in this function)
> > > >    include/trace/syscall.h:39:6: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in
> > > >
> > > > vim +/TIF_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT +39 include/trace/syscall.h
> > > >
> > > >     33		struct ftrace_event_call *exit_event;
> > > >     34	};
> > > >     35
> > > >     36	#ifdef CONFIG_TRACEPOINTS
> > > >     37	static inline void syscall_tracepoint_update(struct task_struct *p)
> > > >     38	{
> > > >   > 39		if (test_thread_flag(TIF_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT))
> > > >     40			set_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT);
> > > >     41		else
> > > >     42			clear_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT);
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > 0-DAY kernel build testing backend              Open Source Technology Center
> > > > http://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/kbuild                 Intel Corporation
> > >
> > > My allyesconfig build passed with flying colors. Although we should
> >
> > I should elaborate. I was building against mainline, I noticed that the
> > kbuild test included linux-next.
>
> My entire test suite passed. I'm not going to bother with adding the
> header now, as it shouldn't affect mainline. I'm going to push my
> changes up to linux-next tonight and push to Linus tomorrow.

Argh... but it seems that that patch really needs a fix?

	- #ifdef CONFIG_TRACEPOINTS
	+ #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINTS

or even
	- #ifdef CONFIG_TRACEPOINTS
	+ #if defined(CONFIG_TRACEPOINTS) && defined(CONFIG_HAVE_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINTS)

or I am totally confused?

Oleg.