[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <yrqgoc66te54tuffkrc74clsosiid2giw3gpc3kd3ddl4662tb@kiqh3ncfxwnl>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2025 15:35:55 -0700
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>
To: Song Liu <song@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-toolchains@...r.kernel.org, live-patching@...r.kernel.org, indu.bhagat@...cle.com,
puranjay@...nel.org, wnliu@...gle.com, irogers@...gle.com, joe.lawrence@...hat.com,
mark.rutland@....com, peterz@...radead.org, roman.gushchin@...ux.dev,
rostedt@...dmis.org, will@...nel.org, kernel-team@...a.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] arm64: Implement arch_stack_walk_reliable
On Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 02:37:06PM -0700, Song Liu wrote:
> +noinline noinstr int arch_stack_walk_reliable(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry,
> + void *cookie, struct task_struct *task)
> +{
> + struct kunwind_consume_entry_data data = {
> + .consume_entry = consume_entry,
> + .cookie = cookie,
> + };
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = kunwind_stack_walk(arch_kunwind_consume_entry, &data, task, NULL, true);
> + if (ret == -ENOENT)
> + ret = 0;
Is this check redundant with the -ENOENT check in do_kunwind() which
already converts ret to zero?
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists