From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 17:20:04 +0100
Subject: [RFC 2/3] arm64: refactor save_stack_trace()
In-Reply-To: <1357EA74-B972-4B99-ADB0-BC7E8F06DDB5@gmail.com>
References: <20150716102405.2cc8c406@gandalf.local.home>
 <12F47692-3010-4886-B87D-3D7820609177@gmail.com>
 <20150716113115.45a17f17@gandalf.local.home>
 <20150716121658.7982fdf5@gandalf.local.home>
 <20150717124054.GE26091@leverpostej>
 <20150717090009.720f6bd0@gandalf.local.home>
 <77EA0F10-D5F6-48BD-8652-3B979A978659@gmail.com>
 <20150717104144.6588b2f7@gandalf.local.home>
 <0886A996-40E1-49E9-823C-85E55A858716@gmail.com>
 <1357EA74-B972-4B99-ADB0-BC7E8F06DDB5@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20150720162004.GL9908@arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Hi all,

On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 04:34:21PM +0100, Jungseok Lee wrote:
> On Jul 17, 2015, at 11:59 PM, Jungseok Lee wrote:
> > On Jul 17, 2015, at 11:41 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> >> Thanks! Can you repost patch 1 with the changes I recommended, so that
> >> I can get an Acked-by from the arm64 maintainers and pull all the
> >> changes in together. This is fine for a 4.3 release, right? That is, it
> >> doesn't need to go into 4.2-rcs.
> >> 
> > 
> > It's not hard to repost a patch, but I feel like we have to wait for Akashi's response.
> > Also, it might be needed to consider Mark's comment on arch part.
> > 
> > If they are okay, I will proceed.
> 
> The [RFC 1/3] patch used in my environment is shaped as follows.
> I leave the hunk for *only* clear synchronization. This is why I choose this format
> instead of reposting a patch. I hope it would help to track down this thread.
> 
> I think this is my best at this point.
> 
> ----8<----
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/ftrace.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/ftrace.h
> index c5534fa..2b43e20 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/ftrace.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/ftrace.h
> @@ -13,8 +13,9 @@
>  
>  #include <asm/insn.h>
>  
> -#define MCOUNT_ADDR		((unsigned long)_mcount)
> -#define MCOUNT_INSN_SIZE	AARCH64_INSN_SIZE
> +#define MCOUNT_ADDR			((unsigned long)_mcount)
> +#define MCOUNT_INSN_SIZE		AARCH64_INSN_SIZE
> +#define FTRACE_STACK_FRAME_OFFSET	AARCH64_INSN_SIZE
>  
>  #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
>  #include <linux/compat.h>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> index 407991b..9ab67af 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
>  #include <linux/sched.h>
>  #include <linux/stacktrace.h>
>  
> +#include <asm/insn.h>
>  #include <asm/stacktrace.h>
>  
>  /*
> @@ -52,7 +53,7 @@ int notrace unwind_frame(struct stackframe *frame)
>  	 * -4 here because we care about the PC at time of bl,
>  	 * not where the return will go.
>  	 */
> -	frame->pc = *(unsigned long *)(fp + 8) - 4;
> +	frame->pc = *(unsigned long *)(fp + 8) - AARCH64_INSN_SIZE;
>  
>  	return 0;
>  }

The arm64 bits look fine to me:

  Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>

Steve: feel free to take this along with the other ftrace changes. I don't
anticipate any conflicts, but if anything crops up in -next we can sort
it out then.

Thanks!

Will