[PATCH v3 19/25] powerpc/ftrace: Minimise number of #ifdefs

[Michael Ellerman]

Michael Ellerman <mpe at ellerman.id.au> writes:
> "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao at linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>> Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>> A lot of #ifdefs can be replaced by IS_ENABLED()
>>> 
>>> Do so.
>>> 
>>> This requires to have kernel_toc_addr() defined at all time
>>> as well as PPC_INST_LD_TOC and PPC_INST_STD_LR.
>>> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy at csgroup.eu>
>>> ---
>>> v2: Moved the setup of pop outside of the big if()/else() in __ftrace_make_nop()
>>> ---
>>>  arch/powerpc/include/asm/code-patching.h |   2 -
>>>  arch/powerpc/include/asm/module.h        |   2 -
>>>  arch/powerpc/include/asm/sections.h      |  24 +--
>>>  arch/powerpc/kernel/trace/ftrace.c       | 182 +++++++++++------------
>>>  4 files changed, 103 insertions(+), 107 deletions(-)
>>> 
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> @@ -710,6 +707,9 @@ void arch_ftrace_update_code(int command)
>>> 
>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_PPC64
>>>  #define PACATOC offsetof(struct paca_struct, kernel_toc)
>>> +#else
>>> +#define PACATOC 0
>>> +#endif
>>
>> This conflicts with my fix for the ftrace init tramp:
>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/patch/20220516071422.463738-1-naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com/
>>
>> It probably makes sense to retain #ifdef CONFIG_PPC64, so that we can 
>> get rid of the PACATOC. Here is an incremental diff:
>
> Where is the incremental diff meant to apply?
>
> It doesn't apply on top of patch 19, or at the end of the series.

I think I worked out what you meant.

Can you check what's in next-test:

  https://github.com/linuxppc/linux/commits/next-test

cheers