From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F82EC433DB for ; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 16:02:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4797E64DEC for ; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 16:02:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233811AbhBQQCy (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Feb 2021 11:02:54 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([63.128.21.124]:50433 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233867AbhBQQCv (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Feb 2021 11:02:51 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1613577686; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=cmZglzZ54ozWbqqK1NjGe7+944JUuKg5N2LK9/XrvMA=; b=KH6EEDcT45ua3rjPvkf7/UtIsq9/q2w9MPLgn26Q+66F33BfF+ax6PMdSXEznpxZpY/vP1 FcxhFRcg+PuXelWMrE4gkSxhEL7xHXaUHnOrIi5HVQGSP+ywUii5Vz4QlSbksAwiCZIdBQ clCRdDtvVTtXhweoj4Xo7rUPLbXVCXY= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-256-0v8fbV9MPY278gv7-0ZeRw-1; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 11:01:22 -0500 X-MC-Unique: 0v8fbV9MPY278gv7-0ZeRw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA73B100CCCD; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 16:01:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from thuth.remote.csb (ovpn-112-116.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.112.116]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62DCC60657; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 16:01:16 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 5/8] s390x: Provide preliminary backtrace support To: Janosch Frank , kvm@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, imbrenda@linux.ibm.com, pmorel@linux.ibm.com, david@redhat.com References: <20210217144116.3368-1-frankja@linux.ibm.com> <20210217144116.3368-6-frankja@linux.ibm.com> From: Thomas Huth Message-ID: <1bba9659-efa4-192a-ef60-ab62069f2901@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 17:01:15 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210217144116.3368-6-frankja@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.11 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org On 17/02/2021 15.41, Janosch Frank wrote: > After the stack changes we can finally use -mbackchain and have a > working backtrace. > > Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank > --- > lib/s390x/interrupt.c | 12 ++++++++++++ > lib/s390x/stack.c | 20 ++++++++++++++------ > s390x/Makefile | 1 + > 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/lib/s390x/interrupt.c b/lib/s390x/interrupt.c > index a59df80e..23ad922c 100644 > --- a/lib/s390x/interrupt.c > +++ b/lib/s390x/interrupt.c > @@ -115,6 +115,18 @@ static void fixup_pgm_int(struct stack_frame_int *stack) > /* suppressed/terminated/completed point already at the next address */ > } > > +static void print_pgm_info(struct stack_frame_int *stack) > + > +{ > + printf("\n"); > + printf("Unexpected program interrupt: %d on cpu %d at %#lx, ilen %d\n", > + lc->pgm_int_code, stap(), lc->pgm_old_psw.addr, > + lc->pgm_int_id); > + dump_stack(); > + report_summary(); > + abort(); > +} I asssume this hunk should go into the next patch instead? Or should the change to handle_pgm_int() from the next patch go into this patch here instead? Otherwise you have an unused static function here and the compiler might complain about it (when bisecting later). Thomas