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 vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A64E3C433FE for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2022 14:56:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S242716AbiA0O4b (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jan 2022 09:56:31 -0500 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:37568 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S238299AbiA0O4a (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Jan 2022 09:56:30 -0500 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B29CC113E; Thu, 27 Jan 2022 06:56:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from FVFF77S0Q05N (unknown [10.57.14.34]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D73833F766; Thu, 27 Jan 2022 06:56:27 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2022 14:56:10 +0000 From: Mark Rutland To: Steven Rostedt Cc: Sven Schnelle , Yinan Liu , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Sachin Sant , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ardb@kernel.org, keescook@chromium.org, hca@linux.ibm.com Subject: Re: [powerpc] ftrace warning kernel/trace/ftrace.c:2068 with code-patching selftests Message-ID: References: <0fa0daec-881a-314b-e28b-3828e80bbd90@linux.alibaba.com> <20220127074601.41a3773d@rorschach.local.home> <20220127085543.200dd38e@gandalf.local.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220127085543.200dd38e@gandalf.local.home> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 08:55:43AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 13:33:02 +0000 > Mark Rutland wrote: > > > I want to get the regression fixed ASAP, so can we take a simple patch for -rc2 > > which disables the build-time sort where it's currently broken (by limiting the > > opt-in to arm and x86), then follow-up per-architecture to re-enable it if > > desired/safe? > > I'm going to retest my patch that makes it an opt in for just x86 and arm > (32bit). I'll be pushing that hopefully later today. I have some other > patches to test as well. Great; thanks! Let me know if you'd like me to give that a spin on arm or arm64. Thanks, Mark.