Michael Ellerman <m...@ellerman.id.au> writes: > "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n....@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.le...@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....@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
