On Thu, Aug 6, 2026 at 5:52 PM Andrey Grodzovsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2026 at 5:22 PM Song Liu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2026 at 8:30 AM Andrey Grodzovsky > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Writing 0 to kernel.ftrace_enabled has not reliably disabled ftrace > > > for years (FTRACE_OPS_FL_PERMANENT users already block it, and more > > > callers rely on ftrace always being on). Refuse the write instead of > > > leaving it in an inconsistent "disables some, not all" state: return > > > -EOPNOTSUPP and log a message. Reads and enabling (writing 1) are > > > unaffected. > > > > > > Update the docs to note the deprecation up front. > > > > > > Suggested-by: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> > > > Signed-off-by: Andrey Grodzovsky <[email protected]> > > > > Sashiko's comments make sense. Other than those: > > > > The bot has 2 comments. > > In my opinion, the test-breaking comment is wrong as he looked > strictly at this patch w/o reviewing the follow-up live patch testing > changes which update the tests to avoid breaks. > > The cleanup comment is valid but since we aren't sure if we'll need to > revert this change later if it breaks userspace in some unseen way, I > wonder how extensive the cleanup should be? Steven, can you advise > please ? > > Andrey
Gentle ping on this question above Steven. Andrey > > > Acked-by: Song Liu <[email protected]> > > > > > --- > > > Documentation/trace/ftrace.rst | 5 ++++ > > > kernel/trace/ftrace.c | 43 +++++----------------------------- > > > 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-) > > >
