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.
-- Steve
