On Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 03:29:19PM -0500, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:
>
>
> On 3/18/21 1:26 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 11:57:55AM -0500, madvenka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> >> + /* Terminal record, nothing to unwind */
> >> + if (fp == (unsigned long) regs->stackframe) {
> >> + if (regs->frame_type == TASK_FRAME ||
> >> + regs->frame_type == EL0_FRAME)
> >> + return -ENOENT;
> >> return -EINVAL;
> >> + }
> >
> > This is conflating the reliable stacktrace checks (which your series
> > will later flag up with frame->reliable) with verifying that we found
> > the bottom of the stack by looking for this terminal stack frame record.
> > For the purposes of determining if the unwinder got to the bottom of the
> > stack we don't care what stack type we're looking at, we just care if it
> > managed to walk to this defined final record.
> >
> > At the minute nothing except reliable stack trace has any intention of
> > checking the specific return code but it's clearer to be consistent.
> >
>
> So, you are saying that the type check is redundant. OK. I will remove it
> and just return -ENOENT on reaching the final record.
Yes please; and please fold that into the same patch that adds the final
records.
Thanks,
Mark.
