On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 14:18:50 +0800
Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: "Steven Rostedt (Red Hat)" <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Commit 33fddff24d05d71f97722cb7deec4964d39d10dc upstream
>
> There's no real difference between trace_buffer_unlock_commit() and
> trace_buffer_unlock_commit_regs() except that the former passes NULL to
> ftrace_stack_trace() instead of regs. Have the former be a static inline of
> the latter which passes NULL for regs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> [backport: modify trace_buffer_unlock_commit() in include/linux/trace_events.h]
> Fixes: c5e0535fe67b ("tracing: Skip more functions when doing stack tracing of events")
> Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
I'm not against this backport, but I'd like to know more why you feel
this is a stable fix. Just to get a better backtrace? Can you show some
examples of the issue you have and how this fixes it?
Thanks!
-- Steve
