Re: [linux-next:master 8539/9537] include/linux/ftrace.h:126:16: error: implicit declaration of function 'arch_ftrace_get_regs'; did you mean 'ftrace_get_regs'?

[Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 10:30:42AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2022 15:13:39 +0000
> Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
> 
> > To be honest, we just didn't think to remove static ftrace; I'm happy to remove
> > that for arm64.
> 
> Please do. There's no reason for it. The *only* reason I keep it around on
> x86 is to make sure it still works (for those other architectures
> developing ftrace).

I've sent that out as:

  https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20221122163624.1225912-1-mark.rutland@arm.com/T/#u

... on the assumption Will can queue that as a fixup.

> > That said, I still think it makes sense to change the code to check 
> > CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_ARGS rather than
> > CONFIG_HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_ARGS, as mentioned below, unless you intend for
> > that to have an effect on static ftrace on x86?
> > 
> > Everywhere else with DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_ARGS forces DYNAMIC_FTRACE, so it ends
> > up equivalent; x86 and arm64 are the only exceptions today.
> 
> Yeah, looking at the code, I think it does make sense to just use
> DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_ARGS, as that was created to combine the other two
> configs anyway.

Great; I'll follow up with a cleanup patch once the above has settled.

Thanks,
Mark.