Skip to contentSkip to conversation

tracing/branch-tracer: include missing irqflags.h

PATCH Applied Frederic Weisbecker 3 participants 4 messages Nov 29, 2008 – Nov 30, 2008 Tracing

lore
Share & tools
lore

Frederic Weisbecker

author
#0 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 tracing/branch-tracer: include missing irqflags.h

Impact: fix build error on branch tracer

This should fix a build error reported on alpha in linux-next:

CC kernel/trace/trace_branch.o
kernel/trace/trace_branch.c: In function 'probe_likely_condition':
kernel/trace/trace_branch.c:44: error: implicit declaration of function 'raw_local_irq_save' kernel/trace/trace_branch.c:76: error: implicit declaration of function 'raw_local_irq_restore'

Unfortunately, I can't test it since I don't have any Alpha build environment.

Reported-by Alexey Dobriyan <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by Frederic Weisbecker <[email protected]>

---

kernel/trace/trace_branch.c +1 -0
index 877ee88..bc97275 100644
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
 #include <linux/kallsyms.h>
 #include <linux/seq_file.h>
 #include <linux/spinlock.h>
+#include <linux/irqflags.h>
 #include <linux/debugfs.h>
 #include <linux/uaccess.h>
 #include <linux/module.h>
Applied
#1 lore raw
Quoted 8 lines · Frederic Weisbecker

Impact: fix build error on branch tracer

This should fix a build error reported on alpha in linux-next:

CC kernel/trace/trace_branch.o
kernel/trace/trace_branch.c: In function 'probe_likely_condition':
kernel/trace/trace_branch.c:44: error: implicit declaration of function 'raw_local_irq_save' kernel/trace/trace_branch.c:76: error: implicit declaration of function 'raw_local_irq_restore'

applied to tip/tracing

Quoted 2 lines

Unfortunately, I can't test it since I don't have any Alpha build environment.

it does not trigger with an Alpha defconfig - we do test that.

And the thing is, lockdep (which introduced irqflags tracing) has been introduced upstream two years ago - and Alpha still does not have it implemented. The architecture should be marked CONFIG_BROKEN if it continues to cause problems like this.

Alexey, you seem to be using and relying on the Alpha architecture, could you please have a shot at this and implement the missing irqflags infrastructure? Thanks,

Ingo

#2 lore raw
Quoted 17 lines · Ingo Molnar
Quoted 8 lines · Frederic Weisbecker

Impact: fix build error on branch tracer

This should fix a build error reported on alpha in linux-next:

CC kernel/trace/trace_branch.o
kernel/trace/trace_branch.c: In function 'probe_likely_condition':
kernel/trace/trace_branch.c:44: error: implicit declaration of function 'raw_local_irq_save' kernel/trace/trace_branch.c:76: error: implicit declaration of function 'raw_local_irq_restore'

applied to tip/tracing

Quoted 2 lines

Unfortunately, I can't test it since I don't have any Alpha build environment.

Quoted 6 lines

it does not trigger with an Alpha defconfig - we do test that.

And the thing is, lockdep (which introduced irqflags tracing) has been introduced upstream two years ago - and Alpha still does not have it implemented. The architecture should be marked CONFIG_BROKEN if it continues to cause problems like this.

Or people can, horror, cross-compile stuff in relevant configurations.

Quoted 1 line

Alexey, you seem to be using and relying on the Alpha architecture,

No, just alpha is first on the list ('a'), so nastygrams get sent first.

Quoted 2 lines

could you please have a shot at this and implement the missing irqflags infrastructure?

Maybe. Should be interesting.

#3 lore raw
Quoted 18 lines · Alexey Dobriyan
Quoted 17 lines · Ingo Molnar
Quoted 8 lines · Frederic Weisbecker

Impact: fix build error on branch tracer

This should fix a build error reported on alpha in linux-next:

CC kernel/trace/trace_branch.o
kernel/trace/trace_branch.c: In function 'probe_likely_condition':
kernel/trace/trace_branch.c:44: error: implicit declaration of function 'raw_local_irq_save' kernel/trace/trace_branch.c:76: error: implicit declaration of function 'raw_local_irq_restore'

applied to tip/tracing

Quoted 2 lines

Unfortunately, I can't test it since I don't have any Alpha build environment.

Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 6 lines

it does not trigger with an Alpha defconfig - we do test that.

And the thing is, lockdep (which introduced irqflags tracing) has been introduced upstream two years ago - and Alpha still does not have it implemented. The architecture should be marked CONFIG_BROKEN if it continues to cause problems like this.

Or people can, horror, cross-compile stuff in relevant configurations.

Alpha does not have ftrace enabled in its defconfig, so unless you define "relevant configurations" as "dozens and dozens of stupid configs nobody uses and that do not matter to 99.9% of the users" i dont see the point.

And the thing is, even if someone wanted to waste serious amount of time on crossbuilding to all architectures, a consistent set of crosscompilers is not readily available. They are not packaged up properly for distros and it's not clear which architecture wants what crosscompiler version and binutils setup.

Nor is it clear why kernel developers should slow down their testing critical path twenty fold (or more), while it's at most 3 architectures that really matter.

Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line

Alexey, you seem to be using and relying on the Alpha architecture,

No, just alpha is first on the list ('a'), so nastygrams get sent first.

Basically via your "nastygrams" you are artificially inflating the importance of certain bugreports, well beyond their true importance. You are indirectly re-weighting and wasting developer resources that way.

It would be far more important and far more relevant to go over the lists on kerneloops.org, or over the bugs in bugzilla.kernel.org than to complain that some tree broke Alpha 'again'. Alpha is a stale architecture and it shows.

Ingo