Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-52408-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2024 05:25:32 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Vincent Donnefort <vdonnefort@google.com>
Cc: kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>, mhiramat@kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 oe-kbuild-all@lists.linux.dev, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com,
 kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 3/6] tracing: Add snapshot refcount
Message-ID: <20240205052532.37c65148@rorschach.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <ZbjQTZ4SIkG703QM@google.com>
References: <20240129142802.2145305-4-vdonnefort@google.com>
	<202401301740.qzZlpcYV-lkp@intel.com>
	<ZbjQTZ4SIkG703QM@google.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 10:32:45 +0000
Vincent Donnefort <vdonnefort@google.com> wrote:

> > All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
> > 
> >    kernel/trace/trace.c: In function 'tracing_set_tracer':
> >    kernel/trace/trace.c:6644:17: error: implicit declaration of function 'tracing_disarm_snapshot_locked'; did you mean 'tracing_disarm_snapshot'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> >     6644 |                 tracing_disarm_snapshot_locked(tr);
> >          |                 ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >          |                 tracing_disarm_snapshot  
> > >> kernel/trace/trace.c:6648:23: error: implicit declaration of function 'tracing_arm_snapshot_locked'; did you mean 'tracing_arm_snapshot'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]  
> >     6648 |                 ret = tracing_arm_snapshot_locked(tr);
> >          |                       ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >          |                       tracing_arm_snapshot
> >    cc1: some warnings being treated as errors  
> 
> Right, two tracers (hwlat and osnoise) select _only_ MAX_TRACE and not
> TRACER_SNAPSHOT.
> 
> However, AFAICT, they will not call any of the swapping functions (they don't
> set use_max_tr). So I suppose arm/disarm can be ommited in that case.

Yeah, if you can test with the various configs enabled and disabled to
make sure that it still builds properly, then that should be good.

I should make sure that my own ktest config that I use to run tests
checks these variations too.

-- Steve