Re: [PATCH bpf-next v3 1/6] ftrace: introduce FTRACE_OPS_FL_JMP

[Steven Rostedt]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2025 13:25:04 +0000 (UTC)
bot+bpf-ci@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> The commit message says "we can tell if we should use 'jmp' for the
> callback in ftrace_call_replace()", but no architecture code is updated
> to check the LSB. Should ftrace_find_rec_direct() and call_direct_funcs()
> mask the JMP bit before returning addresses to architecture code?

I guess AI isn't smart enough to know about kernel config options yet.

> +config DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_JMP
> +	def_bool y
> +	depends on DYNAMIC_FTRACE
> +	depends on DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_DIRECT_CALLS
> +	depends on HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_JMP

Where this code is only implemented when HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_JMP is
set.

-- Steve