| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
When the patch for e16343c47e42 (ARM: 8160/1: drop warning about
return_address not using unwind tables) was created there was still more
code in said branch. Probably this simplification was just missed during
conflict resolution when the patch was applied.
Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
|
|
Use the global current_stack_pointer to get the value of the stack pointer.
This change supports being able to compile the kernel with both gcc and Clang.
Signed-off-by: Behan Webster <behanw@converseincode.com>
Reviewed-by: Mark Charlebois <charlebm@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Jan-Simon Möller <dl9pf@gmx.de>
Acked-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
Acked-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
|
|
The warning was introduced in 2009 (commit 4bf1fa5a34aa ([ARM] 5613/1:
implement CALLER_ADDRESSx)). The only "problem" here is that
CALLER_ADDRESSx for x > 1 returns NULL which doesn't do much harm.
The drawback of implementing a fix (i.e. use unwind tables to implement CALLER_ADDRESSx) is that much of the unwinder code would need to be marked as not
traceable.
Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
|
|
With compilers which follow the C99 standard (like modern versions of gcc and
clang), "extern inline" does the wrong thing (emits code for an externally
linkable version of the inline function). In this case using static inline
and removing the NULL version of return_address in return_address.c does
the right thing.
Signed-off-by: Behan Webster <behanw@converseincode.com>
Reviewed-by: Mark Charlebois <charlebm@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
|
|
This makes return_address() return a correct value for CALLER_ADDRn.
To have a correct value from CALLER_ADDRn, we need to fix three points.
* The unwind_frame() does not update frame->lr but frame->pc for backtrace.
So frame->pc is meaningful for backtrace.
* data.level should be adjusted by adding 2 additional iteration levels.
With the current +1 level adjustment, the result of CALLER_ADDR1 will
be the same return address with CALLER_ADDR0.
* The initialization of data.addr to NULL is needed.
When unwind_fame() fails right after data.level reaches zero,
the routine returns data.addr which has uninitialized garbage value.
Signed-off-by: Sahara <keun-o.park@windriver.com>
Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <dave.martin@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
|
|
Many of the core ARM kernel files are not modules, but just
including module.h for exporting symbols. Now these files can
use the lighter footprint export.h for this role.
There are probably lots more, but ARM files of mach-* and plat-*
don't get coverage via a simple yesconfig build. They will have
to be cleaned up and tested via using their respective configs.
Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
|
|
arch/arm/kernel/return_address.c:37:6: warning: symbol 'return_address' was not declared. Should it be static?
arch/arm/kernel/setup.c:76:14: warning: symbol 'processor_id' was not declared. Should it be static?
arch/arm/kernel/traps.c:259:1: warning: symbol 'die_lock' was not declared. Should it be static?
arch/arm/vfp/vfpmodule.c:156:6: warning: symbol 'vfp_raise_sigfpe' was not declared. Should it be static?
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
|
|
From: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
As __builtin_return_address(n) doesn't work for ARM with n > 0, the
kernel needs its own implementation.
This fixes many warnings saying:
warning: unsupported argument to '__builtin_return_address'
The new methods and walk_stackframe must not be instrumented because
CALLER_ADDRESSx is used in the various tracers and tracing the tracer is
a bad idea.
What's currently missing is an implementation using unwind tables. This
is not fatal though, it's just that the tracers don't get enough
information to be really useful.
Note that if both ARM_UNWIND and FRAME_POINTER are enabled,
walk_stackframe uses unwind information. So in this case the same
implementation is used as when FRAME_POINTER is disabled.
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
|
