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

On 4/1/21 9:27 AM, Mark Brown wrote:

On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 02:09:54PM -0500, madvenka@linux.microsoft.com wrote:

quoted

+	 * FTRACE trampolines.
+	 */
+#ifdef CONFIG_DYNAMIC_FTRACE_WITH_REGS
+	{ (unsigned long) &ftrace_graph_call, 0 },
+#ifdef CONFIG_FUNCTION_GRAPH_TRACER
+	{ (unsigned long) ftrace_graph_caller, 0 },
+	{ (unsigned long) return_to_handler, 0 },
+#endif
+#endif

It's weird that we take the address of ftrace_graph_call but not the
other functions - we should be consistent or explain why.  It'd probably
also look nicer to not nest the ifdefs, the dependencies in Kconfig will
ensure we only get things when we should.

Sorry. I forgot to respond to the nested ifdef comment. I will fix that.

Thanks!

Madhavan