>>> On 02.11.12 at 14:53, Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org> wrote: > On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 09:51 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: >> On Thu, 2012-11-01 at 19:53 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >> > There doesn't appear to be anything special about these adjustments, so I >> > don't see what help would be required here - it ought to be the normal use >> > of CFI_ADJUST_CFA_OFFSET that needs adding. >> >> This change look fine to you? >> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S b/arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S >> index 52edf92..7ba5342 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S >> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/entry_64.S >> @@ -1796,10 +1796,12 @@ repeat_nmi: >> >> /* Make another copy, this one may be modified by nested NMIs */ >> addq $(10*8), %rsp >> + CFI_ADJUST_CFA_OFFSET -10*8 >> .rept 5 >> pushq_cfi -6*8(%rsp) >> .endr >> subq $(5*8), %rsp >> + CFI_ADJUST_CFA_OFFSET 5*8 >> >> CFI_DEF_CFA_OFFSET SS+8-RIP >> end_repeat_nmi: >> > > Is that second one even needed? Or will the CFI_DEF_CFA_OFFSET SS+8-RIP > fix it?
Yes it will (as long as no intervening instructions get added; that's to say that I'd recommend removing the blank line to make clear that instruction and annotation belong together). Jan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
