On 3/19/21 7:30 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 03:26:13PM -0500, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote: >> On 3/18/21 10:09 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > >>> If we are going to add the extra record there would probably be less >>> potential for confusion if we pointed it at some sensibly named dummy >>> function so anything or anyone that does see it on the stack doesn't get >>> confused by a NULL. > >> I agree. I will think about this some more. If no other solution presents >> itself, I will add the dummy function. > > After discussing this with Mark Rutland offlist he convinced me that so > long as we ensure the kernel doesn't print the NULL record we're > probably OK here, the effort setting the function pointer up correctly > in all circumstances (especially when we're not in the normal memory > map) is probably not worth it for the limited impact it's likely to have > to see the NULL pointer (probably mainly a person working with some > external debugger). It should be noted in the changelog though, and/or > merged in with the relevant change to the unwinder. > OK. I will add a comment as well as note it in the changelog. Thanks to both of you. Madhavan
