Hey Mark Rutland, Mark Brown,
Could you please review the rest of the patches in the series when you can?
Also, many of the patches have received a Reviewed-By from you both. So, after I send the next version out, can we upstream those ones?
Thanks.
Madhavan
On 2/15/22 07:39, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 08:56:03AM -0600, madvenka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Rename the arguments to unwind() for better consistency. Also, use the
>> typedef stack_trace_consume_fn for the consume_entry function as it is
>> already defined in linux/stacktrace.h.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Madhavan T. Venkataraman <madvenka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> How about:
>
> | arm64: align with common stracktrace naming
> |
> | For historical reasons, the naming of parameters and their types in the arm64
> | stacktrace code differs from that used in generic code and other
> | architectures, even though the types are equivalent.
> |
> | For consistency and clarity, use the generic names.
>
> Either way:
>
> Reviewed-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx>
>
> Mark.
>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c | 4 ++--
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
>> index 1b32e55735aa..f772dac78b11 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
>> @@ -181,12 +181,12 @@ static int notrace unwind_next(struct unwind_state *state)
>> NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(unwind_next);
>>
>> static void notrace unwind(struct unwind_state *state,
>> - bool (*fn)(void *, unsigned long), void *data)
>> + stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry, void *cookie)
>> {
>> while (1) {
>> int ret;
>>
>> - if (!fn(data, state->pc))
>> + if (!consume_entry(cookie, state->pc))
>> break;
>> ret = unwind_next(state);
>> if (ret < 0)
>> --
>> 2.25.1
>>
