On 2/17/21 5:01 PM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 17/02/2021 15.41, Janosch Frank wrote:
>> After the stack changes we can finally use -mbackchain and have a
>> working backtrace.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> lib/s390x/interrupt.c | 12 ++++++++++++
>> lib/s390x/stack.c | 20 ++++++++++++++------
>> s390x/Makefile | 1 +
>> 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/s390x/interrupt.c b/lib/s390x/interrupt.c
>> index a59df80e..23ad922c 100644
>> --- a/lib/s390x/interrupt.c
>> +++ b/lib/s390x/interrupt.c
>> @@ -115,6 +115,18 @@ static void fixup_pgm_int(struct stack_frame_int *stack)
>> /* suppressed/terminated/completed point already at the next address */
>> }
>>
>> +static void print_pgm_info(struct stack_frame_int *stack)
>> +
>> +{
>> + printf("\n");
>> + printf("Unexpected program interrupt: %d on cpu %d at %#lx, ilen %d\n",
>> + lc->pgm_int_code, stap(), lc->pgm_old_psw.addr,
>> + lc->pgm_int_id);
>> + dump_stack();
>> + report_summary();
>> + abort();
>> +}
>
> I asssume this hunk should go into the next patch instead?
> Or should the change to handle_pgm_int() from the next patch go into this
> patch here instead?
> Otherwise you have an unused static function here and the compiler might
> complain about it (when bisecting later).
I'll move it to the next patch
>
> Thomas
>
