On 3/23/21 5:36 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> 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.
>
Will do.
Thanks.
Madhavan
