Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 5 Oct 2021 20:09:35 -0400 | From | Steven Rostedt <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH][next] ftrace: Fix -Wcast-function-type warnings on powerpc64 |
| |
On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 14:35:57 -0500 "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 05, 2021 at 03:08:07PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > [..] > > Or did you not remove your patch first? > > Yep; that was the problem. > > I now applied it to a clean tree and the warnings went away. > > However, I'm a bit concerned about the following Jann's comments:
I should have replied back then, but I'll do that now (and added Jann to the CC)
> > "the real issue here is that ftrace_func_t is defined as a fixed > type, but actually has different types depending on the architecture? > If so, it might be cleaner to define ftrace_func_t differently > depending on architecture, or something like that?"[1]
It's not dependent on the architecture. It's dependent on what the architecture has implemented. There's nothing limiting the arch to use the normal method, except that nobody implemented the updates.
As I changed the core API, it affected the architectures, and since I don't know how to update all the architectures that use that API, and do not have the hardware to test it, I made it so architectures can slowly be updated when their maintainers get time to. This was years ago, and not much has been done.
> > "Would it not be possible to have two function types (#define'd as the > same if ARCH_SUPPORTS_FTRACE_OPS), and then ensure that ftrace_func_t > is only used as ftrace_asm_func_t if ARCH_SUPPORTS_FTRACE_OPS?"[2] > > "Essentially my idea here is to take the high-level rule "you can only > directly call ftrace_func_t-typed functions from assembly if > ARCH_SUPPORTS_FTRACE_OPS", and encode it in the type system. And then > the compiler won't complain as long as we make sure that we never cast > between the two types under ARCH_SUPPORTS_FTRACE_OPS==0."[3] > > So, is this linker approach really a good solution to this problem? :) > > What's the main problem with what Jann suggests?
The main issue is I want no more #ifdef's in the main code. There's too many already and it makes it difficult to maintain. I want to get rid of them, not add more. So anything that adds more #ifdef's to the main code, I will NACK.
Which I guess leaves us with either the linker trick, or having all the archs get updated to support the latest ftrace features, and we can remove the current #ifdefs.
-- Steve
> > Thanks! > -- > Gustavo > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAG48ez2pOns4vF9M_4ubMJ+p9YFY29udMaH0wm8UuCwGQ4ZZAQ@mail.gmail.com/ > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAG48ez04Fj=1p61KAxAQWZ3f_z073fVUr8LsQgtKA9c-kcHmDQ@mail.gmail.com/#t > [3] https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAG48ez1LoTLmHnAKFZCQFSvcb13Em6kc8y1xO8sNwyvzB=D2Lg@mail.gmail.com/
| |