On 29/09/15 11:16, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> On 28/09/15 23:08, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>> Em Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 04:15:48PM +0300, Adrian Hunter escreveu:
>>> Adjust the validation to allow for max_stack greater than
>>> PERF_MAX_STACK_DEPTH.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Adrian Hunter <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> tools/perf/util/machine.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tools/perf/util/machine.c b/tools/perf/util/machine.c
>>> index fd1efeafb343..d7bd9a304535 100644
>>> --- a/tools/perf/util/machine.c
>>> +++ b/tools/perf/util/machine.c
>>> @@ -1831,7 +1831,7 @@ static int thread__resolve_callchain_sample(struct
>>> thread *thread,
>>> }
>>>
>>> check_calls:
>>> - if (chain->nr > PERF_MAX_STACK_DEPTH) {
>>> + if (chain->nr > PERF_MAX_STACK_DEPTH && (int)chain->nr > max_stack) {
>>
>> Both?
>
> Yes.
>
> In the case of a hardware generated callchain, the callchain can be up to
> PERF_MAX_STACK_DEPTH but max_stack can be less than PERF_MAX_STACK_DEPTH to
> limit the number processed.
>
> In the case of a synthesized callchain, the callchain can be up to max_stack
> which might be more than PERF_MAX_STACK_DEPTH.
Is this ok?
>
>>
>>> pr_warning("corrupted callchain. skipping...\n");
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>> --
>>> 1.9.1
>>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
