On Thu, 2013-01-03 at 20:36 +0900, Keun-O Park wrote: > > So what have you done about the issue referred in this > comment? Or do you > believe that fixing warnings (even if they are explicit > #warning statements) > is far more important than code being functionally correct? > > I admit that I missed to add notrace to unwind.c. > Do you think there's more to add?
I think Russell wants a better change log. What was written sounds like the fix was to remove a warning. It wasn't very clear to how the warning is no longer relevant because of the new changes. The old change log: --- This fixes a warning saying: warning: #warning "TODO: return_address should use unwind tables" And, this enables return_address using unwind information. If ARM_UNWIND is selected, unwind_frame in unwind.c will be called in walk_stackframe. --- Maybe you wanted to say something like: --- Now that the return_address code can safely use unwind tables, fix up the #ifdef statements to reflect this. --- Or something similar, if that's what was done. -- Steve > > diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/unwind.c b/arch/arm/kernel/unwind.c > index 00df012..52ff2d4 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/unwind.c > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/unwind.c > @@ -327,7 +327,7 @@ static int unwind_exec_insn(struct > unwind_ctrl_block *ctrl) > * Unwind a single frame starting with *sp for the symbol at *pc. It > * updates the *pc and *sp with the new values. > */ > -int unwind_frame(struct stackframe *frame) > +int notrace unwind_frame(struct stackframe *frame) > { > unsigned long high, low; > const struct unwind_idx *idx; > -- 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/