Re: [PATCH 1/3] arm64: implement ftrace with regs

[Julien Thierry]

On 14/08/18 03:03, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2018 11:54:06 +0100
> Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/Makefile
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/Makefile
> > > @@ -78,6 +78,15 @@ ifeq ($(CONFIG_ARM64_MODULE_PLTS),y)
> > >    KBUILD_LDFLAGS_MODULE	+= -T $(srctree)/arch/arm64/kernel/module.lds
> > >    endif
> > >    
> > > +ifdef CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS
> > > +  CC_FLAGS_FTRACE := -fpatchable-function-entry=2
> > > +  KBUILD_CPPFLAGS += -DCC_USING_PATCHABLE_FUNCTION_ENTRY
> > > +  ifeq ($(call cc-option,-fpatchable-function-entry=2),)
> > > +    $(warning Cannot use CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS: \
> > > +             -fpatchable-function-entry not supported by compiler)
> >
> > Shouldn't this be an error? The option -fpatchable-function-entry has
> > been added to the CC_FLAGS_FTRACE, so any call to the compiler is gonna
> > break anyway. Or am I missing something?
>
> I'm guessing this adds a more informative message on that error. One
> will know why -fpatchable-function-entry was added to the CFLAGS. I'm
> for more informative error messages being a victim of poor error
> messages causing me to dig deep into the guts of the build
> infrastructure to figure out simple issues.

Yes, I agree it is better to have this message. My point was that we 
could have "$error" instead of "$warning" to stop the compilation right 
away since we know everything is gonna break (and on parallel builds 
this warning is gonna be drowned in compiler errors).

--
Julien Thierry