Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 10 Apr 2019 14:05:17 +0200 (CEST) | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: [RFC patch 29/41] btrfs: ref-verify: Simplify stack trace retrieval |
| |
On Wed, 10 Apr 2019, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 12:28:23PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > Replace the indirection through struct stack_trace with an invocation of > > the storage array based interface. > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> > > Cc: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com> > > Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com> > > Cc: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> > > Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org > > --- > > fs/btrfs/ref-verify.c | 15 ++------------- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > > > --- a/fs/btrfs/ref-verify.c > > +++ b/fs/btrfs/ref-verify.c > > @@ -205,28 +205,17 @@ static struct root_entry *lookup_root_en > > #ifdef CONFIG_STACKTRACE > > static void __save_stack_trace(struct ref_action *ra) > > { > > - struct stack_trace stack_trace; > > - > > - stack_trace.max_entries = MAX_TRACE; > > - stack_trace.nr_entries = 0; > > - stack_trace.entries = ra->trace; > > - stack_trace.skip = 2; > > - save_stack_trace(&stack_trace); > > - ra->trace_len = stack_trace.nr_entries; > > + ra->trace_len = stack_trace_save(ra->trace, MAX_TRACE, 2); > > > Stupid question: why are you passing a '2' for 'skipnr' and in > stack_trace_save() from your series you set stack_trace::skip as skipnr + 1. > > Wouldn't this result in a stack_trace::skip = 3? Or is it the number of > functions to be skipped and you don't want to have stack_trace_save() saved as > well?
Correct. The extra call will shift the skipped one up, so I compensate for that.
Thanks,
tglx
| |