On 06/18, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 21:17:37 -0400
> Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 21:15:59 -0400
> > Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 03:25:46 +0800
> > > kbuild test robot <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > tree:
> > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/rostedt/linux-trace.git
> > > > ftrace/core
> > > > head: 72fa1a896d8ef355e81270667803ceb16a3dd13f
> > > > commit: 32def52ce8faec72c353b6304ca98176687e18f1 [1/3] tracing: Fix
> > > > syscall_*regfunc() vs copy_process() race
> > > > config: make ARCH=xtensa allyesconfig
> > > >
> > > > All error/warnings:
> > > >
> > > > In file included from include/linux/syscalls.h:80:0,
> > > > from fs/ecryptfs/keystore.c:29:
> > > > include/trace/syscall.h: In function 'syscall_tracepoint_update':
> > > > >> include/trace/syscall.h:39:6: error: 'TIF_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT'
> > > > >> undeclared (first use in this function)
> > > > include/trace/syscall.h:39:6: note: each undeclared identifier is
> > > > reported only once for each function it appears in
> > > >
> > > > vim +/TIF_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT +39 include/trace/syscall.h
> > > >
> > > > 33 struct ftrace_event_call *exit_event;
> > > > 34 };
> > > > 35
> > > > 36 #ifdef CONFIG_TRACEPOINTS
> > > > 37 static inline void syscall_tracepoint_update(struct task_struct
> > > > *p)
> > > > 38 {
> > > > > 39 if (test_thread_flag(TIF_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT))
> > > > 40 set_tsk_thread_flag(p, TIF_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT);
> > > > 41 else
> > > > 42 clear_tsk_thread_flag(p,
> > > > TIF_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINT);
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > 0-DAY kernel build testing backend Open Source Technology
> > > > Center
> > > > http://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/kbuild Intel
> > > > Corporation
> > >
> > > My allyesconfig build passed with flying colors. Although we should
> >
> > I should elaborate. I was building against mainline, I noticed that the
> > kbuild test included linux-next.
>
> My entire test suite passed. I'm not going to bother with adding the
> header now, as it shouldn't affect mainline. I'm going to push my
> changes up to linux-next tonight and push to Linus tomorrow.
Argh... but it seems that that patch really needs a fix?
- #ifdef CONFIG_TRACEPOINTS
+ #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINTS
or even
- #ifdef CONFIG_TRACEPOINTS
+ #if defined(CONFIG_TRACEPOINTS) &&
defined(CONFIG_HAVE_SYSCALL_TRACEPOINTS)
or I am totally confused?
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
