[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALAqxLV4rM74wuzuZ+BkUi+keccxkAxv30N4vrFO7CVQ5vnT1A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 19:20:01 -0700
From: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To: paulmck@...nel.org, Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>,
Todd Kjos <tkjos@...gle.com>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
Subject: On trace_*_rcuidle functions in modules
Hey folks,
So recently I was looking at converting some drivers to be loadable
modules instead of built-in only, and one of my patches just landed in
-next and started getting build error reports.
It ends up, recently in the merge window, the driver I was converting
to module switched a trace_*() function to trace_*_rcuidle() to fix a
bug. Now when building as a module, if tracing is configured on, it
can't seem to find the trace_*_rcuidle() symbol.
This is because, as you are aware, we don't declare trace_*_rcuidle
functions in modules - and haven't for quite some time:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20120905062306.GA14756@leaf/
I wanted to better understand the background rationale for that patch,
to understand if not exporting the rcu_idle_exit and rcu_idle_enter,
calls was because they weren't used or if it was a more intentional
decision to avoid allowing modules to use them.
Would it be reasonable to revisit that patch? Or is there some
recommended alternative solution?
thanks
-john
Powered by blists - more mailing lists