Hi Steven,

On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 22:42:15 -0400 Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 21:11:19 -0500
> "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 12:54:46PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:  
> > > > --- a/include/linux/ftrace.h
> > > > +++ b/include/linux/ftrace.h
> > > > @@ -45,6 +45,7 @@ struct ftrace_ops;
> > > >  void arch_ftrace_ops_list_func(unsigned long ip, unsigned long parent_ip);
> > > >  #else
> > > >  # define FTRACE_FORCE_LIST_FUNC 0
> > > > +struct ftrace_regs;
> > > >  void arch_ftrace_ops_list_func(unsigned long ip, unsigned long parent_ip,
> > > >  			       struct ftrace_ops *op, struct ftrace_regs *fregs);
> > > >  #endif
> > > > -- 
> > > > 2.33.0    
> > > 
> > > I am still applying this fix ...    
> > 
> > I will add this fix to the original patch for my tomorrow's -next tree.  
> 
> Hmm, I pushed my version to my for-next branch. Do you have this in the
> next tree?
> 
>   34cdd18b8d245f3e901e5325 ("tracing: Use linker magic instead of recasting
>   ftrace_ops_list_func()")
> 
> Which shouldn't need this fix.

Well, that is in your tree today, but (1) doesn't help with the build
failure in Gustavo's tree on its own (i.e. it creates a dependency
between Gustavo's tree and your tree) and (2) now I will get a conflict
between the two trees today.  Oh, well.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell