| Message ID | 563CE9AA.8050905@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 09:55:54AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote: > On 11/6/2015 9:51 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > >On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 09:39:07AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote: > >>On 11/6/2015 9:35 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > >>>On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 09:23:38AM -0800, Shi, Yang wrote: > >>>>On 11/6/2015 8:25 AM, Will Deacon wrote: > >>>>>However, the patch would allow one to > >>>>>disable FRAME_POINTERS (not sure it has any effect on the aarch64 gcc > >>>>>though). > >>>> > >>>>No, it doesn't. Actually, FRAME_POINTER could be disabled regardless of the > >>>>patch. > >>> > >>>In which case I suggest that we always select it just as a clearer > >>>statement that the feature cannot be disabled (and you never know what > >>>the compiler people decide to do in the future). > >> > >>Do you mean select FRAME_POINTER in ARCH_WANT_FRAME_POINTERS? > >> > >>Yes, we could, but this may cause other architectures which select > >>ARCH_WANT_FRAME_POINTERS to have FRAME_POINTER selected too. > > > >This would have been the ideal option, something like: > > > >--- a/lib/Kconfig.debug > >+++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug > >@@ -322,7 +322,7 @@ config ARCH_WANT_FRAME_POINTERS > > help > > > > config FRAME_POINTER > >- bool "Compile the kernel with frame pointers" > >+ bool "Compile the kernel with frame pointers" if !ARCH_WANT_FRAME_POINTERS > > depends on DEBUG_KERNEL && \ > > (CRIS || M68K || FRV || UML || \ > > AVR32 || SUPERH || BLACKFIN || MN10300 || METAG) || \ > > > >But, as you said, we would need to check the other architectures > >selecting ARCH_WANT_FRAME_POINTERS. > > How about: > > diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug > index 1d1521c..709255a 100644 > --- a/lib/Kconfig.debug > +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug > @@ -319,6 +319,7 @@ config DEBUG_SECTION_MISMATCH > # > config ARCH_WANT_FRAME_POINTERS > bool > + select FRAME_POINTER if ARM64 > help > > config FRAME_POINTER > > If other architectures want the same behavior, they could easily append to > the is statement. If all arches which selects ARCH_WANT_FRAME_POINTERS, the > if statement could be just removed. I prefer the select in the ARM64 Kconfig entry as below: > >--- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig > >+++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig > >@@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ config ARM64 > > select CPU_PM if (SUSPEND || CPU_IDLE) > > select DCACHE_WORD_ACCESS > > select EDAC_SUPPORT > >+ select FRAME_POINTER > > select GENERIC_ALLOCATOR > > select GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS > > select GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS_BROADCAST > > -- Catalin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
diff --git a/lib/Kconfig.debug b/lib/Kconfig.debug index 1d1521c..709255a 100644 --- a/lib/Kconfig.debug +++ b/lib/Kconfig.debug @@ -319,6 +319,7 @@ config DEBUG_SECTION_MISMATCH # config ARCH_WANT_FRAME_POINTERS bool + select FRAME_POINTER if ARM64 help config FRAME_POINTER