On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 12:05:41PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 10:59:03 -0500
> Josh Poimboeuf <jpoim...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 06:55:21PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > Here's my patch that should be applied on top.
> > >
> > > Maybe add a Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org> along
> > > with your SOB. But you should remain Author.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > @@ -123,13 +124,16 @@ print_context_stack_bp(struct task_struc
> > >
> > > while (valid_stack_ptr(task, ret_addr, sizeof(*ret_addr), end)) {
> > > unsigned long addr = *ret_addr;
> > > + unsigned long real_addr;
> > >
> > > if (!__kernel_text_address(addr))
> > > break;
> > >
> > > - addr = ftrace_graph_ret_addr(task, graph, addr);
> > > - if (ops->address(data, addr, 1))
> > > + real_addr = ftrace_graph_ret_addr(task, graph, addr);
> > > + if (ops->address(data, real_addr, 1))
> > > break;
> > > + if (real_addr != addr)
> > > + ops->address(data, addr, 0);
> > > frame = frame->next_frame;
> > > ret_addr = &frame->return_address;
> > > }
> >
> > Actually this hunk isn't needed because all users of
> > print_context_stack_bp() only care about "reliable" addresses. With
> > frame pointers enabled, the only place "unreliable" addresses are used
> > is in show_trace_log_lvl() -- and it uses the print_context_stack()
> > callback.
> >
> > I rely on that fact in the new frame pointer unwind code: it only
> > reports reliable addresses.
> >
>
> Can you make this a separate patch then. Before this one, and explain
> why it isn't needed in the change log. I rather have the current patch
> not make such a change in logic.
Sure, I'll do that.
--
Josh
