Re: [PATCH v5 07/10] x86/asm/acpi: Fix asmvalidate warnings for wakeup_64.S

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>]

* Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 03:21:35PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > On Wed 2015-06-10 07:06:15, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> > > Fix the following asmvalidate warnings:
> > > 
> > >    asmvalidate: arch/x86/kernel/acpi/wakeup_64.o: wakeup_long64()+0x15: unsupported jump to outside of function
> > >    asmvalidate: arch/x86/kernel/acpi/wakeup_64.o: wakeup_long64()+0x55: unsupported jump to outside of function
> > >    asmvalidate: arch/x86/kernel/acpi/wakeup_64.o: wakeup_long64(): unsupported fallthrough at end of function
> > >    asmvalidate: arch/x86/kernel/acpi/wakeup_64.o: do_suspend_lowlevel()+0x9a: unsupported jump to outside of function
> > >    asmvalidate: arch/x86/kernel/acpi/wakeup_64.o: do_suspend_lowlevel()+0x116: unsupported jump to outside of function
> > >    asmvalidate: arch/x86/kernel/acpi/wakeup_64.o: do_suspend_lowlevel(): unsupported fallthrough at end of function
> > >    asmvalidate: arch/x86/kernel/acpi/wakeup_64.o: do_suspend_lowlevel(): missing FP_SAVE/RESTORE macros
> > >
> > 
> > Actually first things first. Purpose of warnings is to pinpoint
> > errors. Do you believe there are some errors in wakeup_64.S?
> 
> The "errors" are that it doesn't conform with the guidelines outlined in
> the cover letter.  Specifically, wakeup_long64() is improperly
> annotated, and do_suspend_lowlevel() doesn't honor CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER.

Please create a file for this in Documentation/x86/, outlining the common cases of 
such .S debug info problems and the effects this has on the stack backtrace 
output.

Thanks,

	Ingo