[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20190410103644.485737321@linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 12:28:04 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Subject: [RFC patch 10/41] lockdep: Remove the ULONG_MAX stack trace hackery
No architecture terminates the stack trace with ULONG_MAX anymore. Remove
the cruft.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
---
kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 11 -----------
1 file changed, 11 deletions(-)
--- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
@@ -444,17 +444,6 @@ static int save_trace(struct stack_trace
save_stack_trace(trace);
- /*
- * Some daft arches put -1 at the end to indicate its a full trace.
- *
- * <rant> this is buggy anyway, since it takes a whole extra entry so a
- * complete trace that maxes out the entries provided will be reported
- * as incomplete, friggin useless </rant>
- */
- if (trace->nr_entries != 0 &&
- trace->entries[trace->nr_entries-1] == ULONG_MAX)
- trace->nr_entries--;
-
trace->max_entries = trace->nr_entries;
nr_stack_trace_entries += trace->nr_entries;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists