Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: stacktrace: avoid listing stacktrace functions in stacktrace

2017-09-04 Thread Catalin Marinas
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 01:28:28PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 13:02:22 +0530 Prakash Gupta > wrote: > > > The stacktraces always begin as follows: > > > > [] save_stack_trace_tsk+0x0/0x98 > > [] save_stack_trace+0x24/0x28 > > ... > > > > This is because the stack trac

Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: stacktrace: avoid listing stacktrace functions in stacktrace

2017-08-30 Thread Prakash Gupta
On 8/31/2017 1:58 AM, Andrew Morton wrote: On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 13:02:22 +0530 Prakash Gupta wrote: The stacktraces always begin as follows: [] save_stack_trace_tsk+0x0/0x98 [] save_stack_trace+0x24/0x28 ... This is because the stack trace code includes the stack frames for itself. Th

Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: stacktrace: avoid listing stacktrace functions in stacktrace

2017-08-30 Thread Andrew Morton
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 13:02:22 +0530 Prakash Gupta wrote: > The stacktraces always begin as follows: > > [] save_stack_trace_tsk+0x0/0x98 > [] save_stack_trace+0x24/0x28 > ... > > This is because the stack trace code includes the stack frames for itself. > This is incorrect behaviour, and also

[PATCH 1/2] arm64: stacktrace: avoid listing stacktrace functions in stacktrace

2017-08-30 Thread Prakash Gupta
The stacktraces always begin as follows: [] save_stack_trace_tsk+0x0/0x98 [] save_stack_trace+0x24/0x28 ... This is because the stack trace code includes the stack frames for itself. This is incorrect behaviour, and also leads to "skip" doing the wrong thing (which is the number of stack frame