Commit 028a690a1ebc8b "i386: Remove unneeded test of 'task' in dump_trace()"
correctly removed the unneeded 'task != NULL' check because it would
be set to current if it was NULL.
Commit 2bc5f927d489 "i386: split out dumpstack code from traps_32.c"
moved the code from traps_32.c to its own file dump_stack.c for
preparation of the i386 / x86_64 merge.
Commit 8a541665b906 "dumpstack: x86: various small unification steps"
worked to make i386 and x86_64 dump_stack logic similar. But this
actually reverted the correct change from 028a690a1ebc8b.
Commit d0caf292505d "x86/dumpstack: Remove unneeded check in dump_trace()"
removed the unneeded "task != NULL" check for x86_64 but left that same
unneeded check for i386, that was added because x86_64 had it!
This chain of events ironically had i386 add back the unneeded task != NULL
check because x86_64 did it, and then the fix for x86_64 was fixed
by Dan. And even more ironically, it was Dan's smatch bot that told
me that a change to dump_stack_32 I made may be wrong if current can
be NULL (it can't), as there was a check for it by assigning task to
current, and then checking if task is NULL.
Reported-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpen...@oracle.com>
Cc: Jesper Juhl <jesper.j...@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexander van Heukelum <heuke...@fastmail.fm>
Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org>
---
arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack_32.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack_32.c b/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack_32.c
index dca820b..5abd4cd 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack_32.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack_32.c
@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ void dump_trace(struct task_struct *task, struct pt_regs
*regs,
unsigned long dummy;
stack = &dummy;
- if (task && task != current)
+ if (task != current)
stack = (unsigned long *)task->thread.sp;
}
--
1.8.1.4
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
