On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 11:24:45AM +0700, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 09:46:53AM -0800, Peter Feiner wrote:
> > +#ifndef HAVE_ARCH_BACKTRACE
> > +int backtrace(const void **return_addrs, int max_depth)
> > +{
> > + static int walking;
> > + int depth = 0;
> > + void *addr;
> > +
> > + if (walking) {
> > + printf("RECURSIVE STACK WALK!!!\n");
> > + return 0;
> > + }
> > + walking = 1;
> > +
> > + /* __builtin_return_address requires a compile-time constant argument */
> > +#define GET_RETURN_ADDRESS(i) \
> > + if (max_depth == i) \
> > + goto done; \
> > + addr = __builtin_return_address(i + 1); \
>
> Is the +1 to skip a level, which means addr is an address two levels up?
> If we do that, then won't we skip the callers of backtrace, which may or
> may not be dump_stack?
Right and right. In v6 dump_stack now does the skipping.
>
>
> > + if (!addr) \
> > + goto done; \
> > + return_addrs[i] = __builtin_extract_return_addr(addr); \
>
> So here we put the i+1th return address into return_addrs[i]. I find
> that a bit confusing. Maybe we should leave it to the callers of
> backtrace to do any level skipping they want, i.e. here we shouldn't
> skip anything, but dump_stack could start printing at i=1.
Agreed. Changed in v6.
Peter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
