Christophe Leroy wrote:
Le 18/05/2022 à 14:03, Michael Ellerman a écrit :
Michael Ellerman <m...@ellerman.id.au> writes:
"Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n....@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
Christophe Leroy wrote:
A lot of #ifdefs can be replaced by IS_ENABLED()
Do so.
This requires to have kernel_toc_addr() defined at all time
as well as PPC_INST_LD_TOC and PPC_INST_STD_LR.
Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.le...@csgroup.eu>
---
v2: Moved the setup of pop outside of the big if()/else() in __ftrace_make_nop()
---
arch/powerpc/include/asm/code-patching.h | 2 -
arch/powerpc/include/asm/module.h | 2 -
arch/powerpc/include/asm/sections.h | 24 +--
arch/powerpc/kernel/trace/ftrace.c | 182 +++++++++++------------
4 files changed, 103 insertions(+), 107 deletions(-)
<snip>
@@ -710,6 +707,9 @@ void arch_ftrace_update_code(int command)
#ifdef CONFIG_PPC64
#define PACATOC offsetof(struct paca_struct, kernel_toc)
+#else
+#define PACATOC 0
+#endif
This conflicts with my fix for the ftrace init tramp:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/patch/20220516071422.463738-1-naveen.n....@linux.vnet.ibm.com/
It probably makes sense to retain #ifdef CONFIG_PPC64, so that we can
get rid of the PACATOC. Here is an incremental diff:
Where is the incremental diff meant to apply?
It doesn't apply on top of patch 19, or at the end of the series.
Ugh, sorry. I had an additional patch that converts those
ftrace_[regs_]_caller uses to FTRACE_REGS_ADDR, which prevented one of
the hunks from applying.
I think I worked out what you meant.
Can you check what's in next-test:
https://github.com/linuxppc/linux/commits/next-test
Yes that looks fine.
+1
As Naveen mentioned we can also get rid of PACATOC completely and use
offsetof(struct paca_struct, kernel_toc) directly at the only place
PACATOC is used.
Yes, or we can send it out as a separate cleanup.
Thanks,
Naveen
