Re: [RFC PATCH v1 3/4] arm64: Detect FTRACE cases that make the stack trace unreliable

Mark Brown
2021-04-06T11:03:17Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 526 bytes --]

On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 02:47:11PM -0500, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:
> On 4/1/21 1:53 PM, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:

> > Alternatively, I could just move the SYM_INNER_LABEL(ftrace_graph_call..) to outside the ifdef.

> Or, even better, I could just use ftrace_call+4 because that would be the return
> address for the tracer function at ftrace_call:

> I think that would be cleaner. And, I don't need the complicated comments for ftrace_graph_call.

> Is this acceptable?

I think either of those should be fine.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]