[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181214220054.101f9e4c@vmware.local.home>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 22:00:54 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: James Morse <james.morse@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] arm64: Use ftrace_graph_get_ret_stack() instead of
curr_ret_stack
On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 17:09:35 +0000
James Morse <james.morse@....com> wrote:
> Hi Steven,
>
> I gave this branch a spin, but I hit the WARN_ON() fairly easily:
Thanks for testing!
Can you see if this patch fixes it for you?
-- Steve
diff --git a/kernel/trace/fgraph.c b/kernel/trace/fgraph.c
index d4f04f0ca646..8dfd5021b933 100644
--- a/kernel/trace/fgraph.c
+++ b/kernel/trace/fgraph.c
@@ -246,10 +246,10 @@ unsigned long ftrace_return_to_handler(unsigned long frame_pointer)
struct ftrace_ret_stack *
ftrace_graph_get_ret_stack(struct task_struct *task, int idx)
{
- idx = current->curr_ret_stack - idx;
+ idx = task->curr_ret_stack - idx;
if (idx >= 0 && idx <= task->curr_ret_stack)
- return ¤t->ret_stack[idx];
+ return &task->ret_stack[idx];
return NULL;
}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists