[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160802232104.31730733@grimm.local.home>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 23:21:04 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/19] x86/dumpstack: fix function graph tracing stack
dump reliability issues
On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 23:18:57 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2016 22:12:33 -0500
> Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Sounds good. I was thinking I could also add a similar define to
> > indicate whether an arch passes the return address stack pointer to
> > ftrace_push_return_trace(). HAVE_FUNCTION_GRAPH_RET_ADDR_PTR?
> >
>
> If you are making this function global, might as well make all pass
> that pointer when you do the conversion. I don't think we need a define
> to differentiate it.
>
Bah, I was thinking of your ftrace_graph_ret_addr() function. /me needs
to go to bed.
Anyway, if we have to add a parameter, we probably need to update all
the callers anyway. We do need to add a parameter for this, right?
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists