3.16.50-rc1 review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
commit e16343c47e4276f5ebc77ca16feb5e50ca1918f9 upstream.
The warning was introduced in 2009 (commit 4bf1fa5a34aa ([ARM] 5613/1:
implement CALLER_ADDRESSx)). The only "problem" here is that
CALLER_ADDRESSx for x > 1 returns NULL which doesn't do much harm.
The drawback of implementing a fix (i.e. use unwind tables to implement CALLER_ADDRESSx) is that much of the unwinder code would need to be marked as not
traceable.
Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/arm/kernel/return_address.c | 4 ----
1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
--- a/arch/arm/kernel/return_address.c
+++ b/arch/arm/kernel/return_address.c
@@ -59,10 +59,6 @@ void *return_address(unsigned int level)
#else /* if defined(CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER) && !defined(CONFIG_ARM_UNWIND) */
-#if defined(CONFIG_ARM_UNWIND)
-#warning "TODO: return_address should use unwind tables"
-#endif
-
void *return_address(unsigned int level)
{
return NULL;