[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.21.2009021128500.23200@pobox.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 11:32:13 +0200 (CEST)
From: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] arm64: stacktrace: Convert to ARCH_STACKWALK
Hi,
it could be a silly question, but better to ask...
> + if (regs)
> + start_backtrace(&frame, regs->regs[29], regs->pc);
> + else
> + start_backtrace(&frame, thread_saved_fp(task),
> + thread_saved_pc(task));
Would this also work for task == current? Given that the original code had
> - start_backtrace(&frame,
> - (unsigned long)__builtin_frame_address(0),
> - (unsigned long)__save_stack_trace);
for the case, which seems correct (but I don't know much about arm64 arch
in the kernel).
Otherwise, I did not spot anything suspicious or wrong.
Regards
Miroslav
Powered by blists - more mailing lists