[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130103103815.GL2631@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 10:38:15 +0000
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: kpark3469@...il.com
Cc: rostedt@...dmis.org, fweisbec@...il.com, mingo@...hat.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
sahara <keun-o.park@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm: make return_address available for ARM_UNWIND
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 07:12:29PM +0900, kpark3469@...il.com wrote:
> -#if defined(CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER) && !defined(CONFIG_ARM_UNWIND)
> +#if defined(CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER) || defined(CONFIG_ARM_UNWIND)
> /*
> * return_address uses walk_stackframe to do it's work. If both
> * CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER=y and CONFIG_ARM_UNWIND=y walk_stackframe uses unwind
> - * information. For this to work in the function tracer many functions would
> - * have to be marked with __notrace. So for now just depend on
> - * !CONFIG_ARM_UNWIND.
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?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists