live-patching.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: madvenka@linux.microsoft.com
Cc: broonie@kernel.org, jpoimboe@redhat.com, ardb@kernel.org,
	nobuta.keiya@fujitsu.com, sjitindarsingh@gmail.com,
	catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, jmorris@namei.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 02/10] arm64: Rename unwinder functions
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2022 16:10:20 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YdcUbJoz9LwDboGJ@FVFF77S0Q05N> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220103165212.9303-3-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>

On Mon, Jan 03, 2022 at 10:52:04AM -0600, madvenka@linux.microsoft.com wrote:
> From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
> 
> Rename unwinder functions for consistency and better naming.
> 
> 	- Rename start_backtrace() to unwind_init().
> 	- Rename unwind_frame() to unwind_next().
> 	- Rename walk_stackframe() to unwind().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Madhavan T. Venkataraman <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
> Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
> Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>

For consistency, to replace my prior Acked-by:

Reviewed-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>

Mark.

> ---
>  arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++----------------
>  1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> index 5f5bb35b7b41..b980d96dccfc 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> @@ -33,8 +33,8 @@
>   */
>  
>  
> -static void start_backtrace(struct stackframe *frame, unsigned long fp,
> -			    unsigned long pc)
> +static void unwind_init(struct stackframe *frame, unsigned long fp,
> +			unsigned long pc)
>  {
>  	frame->fp = fp;
>  	frame->pc = pc;
> @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ static void start_backtrace(struct stackframe *frame, unsigned long fp,
>  	/*
>  	 * Prime the first unwind.
>  	 *
> -	 * In unwind_frame() we'll check that the FP points to a valid stack,
> +	 * In unwind_next() we'll check that the FP points to a valid stack,
>  	 * which can't be STACK_TYPE_UNKNOWN, and the first unwind will be
>  	 * treated as a transition to whichever stack that happens to be. The
>  	 * prev_fp value won't be used, but we set it to 0 such that it is
> @@ -63,8 +63,8 @@ static void start_backtrace(struct stackframe *frame, unsigned long fp,
>   * records (e.g. a cycle), determined based on the location and fp value of A
>   * and the location (but not the fp value) of B.
>   */
> -static int notrace unwind_frame(struct task_struct *tsk,
> -				struct stackframe *frame)
> +static int notrace unwind_next(struct task_struct *tsk,
> +			       struct stackframe *frame)
>  {
>  	unsigned long fp = frame->fp;
>  	struct stack_info info;
> @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ static int notrace unwind_frame(struct task_struct *tsk,
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * Record this frame record's values and location. The prev_fp and
> -	 * prev_type are only meaningful to the next unwind_frame() invocation.
> +	 * prev_type are only meaningful to the next unwind_next() invocation.
>  	 */
>  	frame->fp = READ_ONCE_NOCHECK(*(unsigned long *)(fp));
>  	frame->pc = READ_ONCE_NOCHECK(*(unsigned long *)(fp + 8));
> @@ -137,23 +137,23 @@ static int notrace unwind_frame(struct task_struct *tsk,
>  
>  	return 0;
>  }
> -NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(unwind_frame);
> +NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(unwind_next);
>  
> -static void notrace walk_stackframe(struct task_struct *tsk,
> -				    struct stackframe *frame,
> -				    bool (*fn)(void *, unsigned long), void *data)
> +static void notrace unwind(struct task_struct *tsk,
> +			   struct stackframe *frame,
> +			   bool (*fn)(void *, unsigned long), void *data)
>  {
>  	while (1) {
>  		int ret;
>  
>  		if (!fn(data, frame->pc))
>  			break;
> -		ret = unwind_frame(tsk, frame);
> +		ret = unwind_next(tsk, frame);
>  		if (ret < 0)
>  			break;
>  	}
>  }
> -NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(walk_stackframe);
> +NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(unwind);
>  
>  static bool dump_backtrace_entry(void *arg, unsigned long where)
>  {
> @@ -195,14 +195,14 @@ noinline notrace void arch_stack_walk(stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry,
>  	struct stackframe frame;
>  
>  	if (regs)
> -		start_backtrace(&frame, regs->regs[29], regs->pc);
> +		unwind_init(&frame, regs->regs[29], regs->pc);
>  	else if (task == current)
> -		start_backtrace(&frame,
> +		unwind_init(&frame,
>  				(unsigned long)__builtin_frame_address(1),
>  				(unsigned long)__builtin_return_address(0));
>  	else
> -		start_backtrace(&frame, thread_saved_fp(task),
> +		unwind_init(&frame, thread_saved_fp(task),
>  				thread_saved_pc(task));
>  
> -	walk_stackframe(task, &frame, consume_entry, cookie);
> +	unwind(task, &frame, consume_entry, cookie);
>  }
> -- 
> 2.25.1
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2022-01-06 16:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <0d0eb36f348fb5a6af6eb592c0525f6e94007328>
2022-01-03 16:52 ` [PATCH v12 00/10] arm64: Reorganize the unwinder and implement stack trace reliability checks madvenka
2022-01-03 16:52   ` [PATCH v12 01/10] arm64: Remove NULL task check from unwind_frame() madvenka
2022-01-06 16:07     ` Mark Rutland
2022-01-03 16:52   ` [PATCH v12 02/10] arm64: Rename unwinder functions madvenka
2022-01-06 16:10     ` Mark Rutland [this message]
2022-01-03 16:52   ` [PATCH v12 03/10] arm64: Rename stackframe to unwind_state madvenka
2022-01-04 14:59     ` Mark Brown
2022-01-06 16:11     ` Mark Rutland
2022-01-03 16:52   ` [PATCH v12 04/10] arm64: Split unwind_init() madvenka
2022-01-06 16:31     ` Mark Rutland
2022-01-06 20:13       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-01-03 16:52   ` [PATCH v12 05/10] arm64: Copy unwind arguments to unwind_state madvenka
2022-01-05 16:57     ` Mark Brown
2022-01-06 16:37     ` Mark Rutland
2022-01-06 20:17       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-01-03 16:52   ` [PATCH v12 06/10] arm64: Make the unwind loop in unwind() similar to other architectures madvenka
2022-01-03 16:52   ` [PATCH v12 07/10] arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability checks in the unwinder madvenka
2022-01-05 16:58     ` Mark Brown
2022-01-05 23:58       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2022-01-06 11:43         ` Mark Brown
2022-01-03 16:52   ` [PATCH v12 08/10] arm64: Create a list of SYM_CODE functions, check return PC against list madvenka
2022-01-03 16:52   ` [PATCH v12 09/10] arm64: Introduce arch_stack_walk_reliable() madvenka
2022-01-03 16:52   ` [PATCH v12 10/10] arm64: Select HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE madvenka

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=YdcUbJoz9LwDboGJ@FVFF77S0Q05N \
    --to=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=ardb@kernel.org \
    --cc=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=jmorris@namei.org \
    --cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=live-patching@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=madvenka@linux.microsoft.com \
    --cc=nobuta.keiya@fujitsu.com \
    --cc=sjitindarsingh@gmail.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).