| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files | Lines |
|---|
|
This makes return_address() return a correct value for CALLER_ADDRn.
To have a correct value from CALLER_ADDRn, we need to fix three points.
* The unwind_frame() does not update frame->lr but frame->pc for backtrace.
So frame->pc is meaningful for backtrace.
* data.level should be adjusted by adding 2 additional iteration levels.
With the current +1 level adjustment, the result of CALLER_ADDR1 will
be the same return address with CALLER_ADDR0.
* The initialization of data.addr to NULL is needed.
When unwind_fame() fails right after data.level reaches zero,
the routine returns data.addr which has uninitialized garbage value.
Signed-off-by: Sahara <keun-o.park@windriver.com>
Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
|
|
Many of the core ARM kernel files are not modules, but just
including module.h for exporting symbols. Now these files can
use the lighter footprint export.h for this role.
There are probably lots more, but ARM files of mach-* and plat-*
don't get coverage via a simple yesconfig build. They will have
to be cleaned up and tested via using their respective configs.
Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
|
|
arch/arm/kernel/return_address.c:37:6: warning: symbol 'return_address' was not declared. Should it be static?
arch/arm/kernel/setup.c:76:14: warning: symbol 'processor_id' was not declared. Should it be static?
arch/arm/kernel/traps.c:259:1: warning: symbol 'die_lock' was not declared. Should it be static?
arch/arm/vfp/vfpmodule.c:156:6: warning: symbol 'vfp_raise_sigfpe' was not declared. Should it be static?
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
|
|
From: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
As __builtin_return_address(n) doesn't work for ARM with n > 0, the
kernel needs its own implementation.
This fixes many warnings saying:
warning: unsupported argument to '__builtin_return_address'
The new methods and walk_stackframe must not be instrumented because
CALLER_ADDRESSx is used in the various tracers and tracing the tracer is
a bad idea.
What's currently missing is an implementation using unwind tables. This
is not fatal though, it's just that the tracers don't get enough
information to be really useful.
Note that if both ARM_UNWIND and FRAME_POINTER are enabled,
walk_stackframe uses unwind information. So in this case the same
implementation is used as when FRAME_POINTER is disabled.
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
|
