[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <tip-2a2bcfa0c94d8bc4770676a6799928036296c037@git.kernel.org>
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2019 13:35:30 -0700
From: tip-bot for Thomas Gleixner <tipbot@...or.com>
To: linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Cc: jpoimboe@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, glider@...gle.com,
luto@...nel.org, linux@...linux.org.uk, tglx@...utronix.de,
peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...nel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [tip:core/stacktrace] arm/stacktrace: Remove the pointless
ULONG_MAX marker
Commit-ID: 2a2bcfa0c94d8bc4770676a6799928036296c037
Gitweb: https://git.kernel.org/tip/2a2bcfa0c94d8bc4770676a6799928036296c037
Author: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
AuthorDate: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 12:27:57 +0200
Committer: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CommitDate: Sun, 14 Apr 2019 19:58:27 +0200
arm/stacktrace: Remove the pointless ULONG_MAX marker
Terminating the last trace entry with ULONG_MAX is a completely pointless
exercise and none of the consumers can rely on it because it's
inconsistently implemented across architectures. In fact quite some of the
callers remove the entry and adjust stack_trace.nr_entries afterwards.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>
Cc: Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190410103643.843075256@linutronix.de
---
arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c | 6 ------
1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c
index a56e7c856ab5..86870f40f9a0 100644
--- a/arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c
+++ b/arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c
@@ -115,8 +115,6 @@ static noinline void __save_stack_trace(struct task_struct *tsk,
* running on another CPU? For now, ignore it as we
* can't guarantee we won't explode.
*/
- if (trace->nr_entries < trace->max_entries)
- trace->entries[trace->nr_entries++] = ULONG_MAX;
return;
#else
frame.fp = thread_saved_fp(tsk);
@@ -134,8 +132,6 @@ static noinline void __save_stack_trace(struct task_struct *tsk,
}
walk_stackframe(&frame, save_trace, &data);
- if (trace->nr_entries < trace->max_entries)
- trace->entries[trace->nr_entries++] = ULONG_MAX;
}
void save_stack_trace_regs(struct pt_regs *regs, struct stack_trace *trace)
@@ -153,8 +149,6 @@ void save_stack_trace_regs(struct pt_regs *regs, struct stack_trace *trace)
frame.pc = regs->ARM_pc;
walk_stackframe(&frame, save_trace, &data);
- if (trace->nr_entries < trace->max_entries)
- trace->entries[trace->nr_entries++] = ULONG_MAX;
}
void save_stack_trace_tsk(struct task_struct *tsk, struct stack_trace *trace)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists