On Mon, Jan 03, 2022 at 10:52:03AM -0600, madvenka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Currently, there is a check for a NULL task in unwind_frame(). It is not > needed since all current consumers pass a non-NULL task. > > Signed-off-by: Madhavan T. Venkataraman <madvenka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> Reviewed-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> Mark. > --- > arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c | 3 --- > 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c > index 0fb58fed54cb..5f5bb35b7b41 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c > @@ -69,9 +69,6 @@ static int notrace unwind_frame(struct task_struct *tsk, > unsigned long fp = frame->fp; > struct stack_info info; > > - if (!tsk) > - tsk = current; > - > /* Final frame; nothing to unwind */ > if (fp == (unsigned long)task_pt_regs(tsk)->stackframe) > return -ENOENT; > -- > 2.25.1 >
