On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 10:32:45 +0000 Vincent Donnefort <vdonnef...@google.com> wrote:
> > All errors (new ones prefixed by >>): > > > > kernel/trace/trace.c: In function 'tracing_set_tracer': > > kernel/trace/trace.c:6644:17: error: implicit declaration of function > > 'tracing_disarm_snapshot_locked'; did you mean 'tracing_disarm_snapshot'? > > [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > > 6644 | tracing_disarm_snapshot_locked(tr); > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > | tracing_disarm_snapshot > > >> kernel/trace/trace.c:6648:23: error: implicit declaration of function > > >> 'tracing_arm_snapshot_locked'; did you mean 'tracing_arm_snapshot'? > > >> [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] > > 6648 | ret = tracing_arm_snapshot_locked(tr); > > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > | tracing_arm_snapshot > > cc1: some warnings being treated as errors > > Right, two tracers (hwlat and osnoise) select _only_ MAX_TRACE and not > TRACER_SNAPSHOT. > > However, AFAICT, they will not call any of the swapping functions (they don't > set use_max_tr). So I suppose arm/disarm can be ommited in that case. Yeah, if you can test with the various configs enabled and disabled to make sure that it still builds properly, then that should be good. I should make sure that my own ktest config that I use to run tests checks these variations too. -- Steve
