Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 5/8] s390x: Provide preliminary backtrace support

[Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>]

On 2/17/21 5:01 PM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> 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 <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>   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).

I'll move it to the next patch

> 
>   Thomas
>