# Re: \[RFC\]\[PATCH\] ftrace: Make DYNAMIC\_FTRACE always enabled for architectures that support it

- From: Steven Rostedt \<rostedt@goodmis.org\>
- Date: 2025-07-04 15:12:08 
- List: linux-trace-kernel
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-trace-kernel/2025/07/3121658
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-trace-kernel/2025/07/3119869/t.md

```text
On Thu, 3 Jul 2025 13:58:17 -0700
Linus Torvalds [ref] wrote:

> So the reason I dislike the HAVE_xyz pattern is exactly that there
> _isn't_ a pattern. When there are fifteen different patterns, it's not
> a pattern at all.
> 
> That said, maybe it's better to have one place that has that "if
> FUNCTION_TRACER, even if I despise the nonsensical "helper
> indirection" just because of the random naming.

At least with HAVE_FTRACE_* there is a pattern. The HAVE_* may not be
consistent across other parts of the kernel, but it has been with ftrace.

As I have stated, ftrace is very tightly coupled with the architectures due
to the assembly written trampolines. And having a simple way for the
architectures to denote what it supports and what it does not makes the
generic code much simpler to implement.

-- Steve
```