Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH v1 3/4] arm64: Detect FTRACE cases that make the stack trace unreliable | From | "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <> | Date | Thu, 1 Apr 2021 12:48:59 -0500 |
| |
On 4/1/21 9:27 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 02:09:54PM -0500, madvenka@linux.microsoft.com wrote: > >> + * FTRACE trampolines. >> + */ >> +#ifdef CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS >> + { (unsigned long) &ftrace_graph_call, 0 }, >> +#ifdef CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER >> + { (unsigned long) ftrace_graph_caller, 0 }, >> + { (unsigned long) return_to_handler, 0 }, >> +#endif >> +#endif > > It's weird that we take the address of ftrace_graph_call but not the > other functions - we should be consistent or explain why. It'd probably > also look nicer to not nest the ifdefs, the dependencies in Kconfig will > ensure we only get things when we should. >
Sorry. I forgot to respond to the nested ifdef comment. I will fix that.
Thanks!
Madhavan
| |