Hi Steve,
On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 08:27:11PM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> From: "Steven Rostedt (VMware)" <rost...@goodmis.org>
>
> The curr_ret_stack is no longer set to -1 when not tracing a function. It is
> now done differently, and the FTRACE_NOTRACE_DEPTH value is no longer used.
> Remove the reference to it.
Do you have a pointer to the commit that changed that behaviour? I just want
to make sure we're not missing something in our unwind_frame() code.
> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.mari...@arm.com>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com>
> Cc: linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org
> Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rost...@goodmis.org>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c | 3 ---
> 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> index 4989f7ea1e59..7723dadf25be 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> @@ -61,9 +61,6 @@ int notrace unwind_frame(struct task_struct *tsk, struct
> stackframe *frame)
> (frame->pc == (unsigned long)return_to_handler)) {
> if (WARN_ON_ONCE(frame->graph == -1))
> return -EINVAL;
Hmm, so is this code redundant too ^^ ?
> - if (frame->graph < -1)
> - frame->graph += FTRACE_NOTRACE_DEPTH;
> -
Do we still need to initialise frame->graph in __save_stack_trace()?
Will
