Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <202305181658063480018@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <202305181658063480018@zte.com.cn>
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Date:   Mon, 29 May 2023 11:46:40 +0200
Message-ID: <CACRpkdayo8ZOm8BJxPSt6g0n-auFsTV7m6RNP6XoqHTM2qRMPw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re:  [PATCH linux-next] ARM: unwind: use ex_frame with CONFIG_UNWINDER_FRAME_POINTER
To:     guo.ziliang@zte.com.cn
Cc:     linux@armlinux.org.uk, rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk,
        lihuafei1@huawei.com, broonie@kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 10:58=E2=80=AFAM <guo.ziliang@zte.com.cn> wrote:

> From: guo ziliang <guo.ziliang@zte.com.cn>
>
> We define ex_frame with CONFIG_UNWINDER_FRAME_POINTER in struct stackfram=
e,
> struct stackframe
> {
>         ......
> #ifdef CONFIG_UNWINDER_FRAME_POINTER
>     bool ex_frame;
> #endif
> };
> but we just use ex_frame without CONFIG_UNWINDER_FRAME_POINTER in
> return_address() and unwind_frame().
> Maybe we should fix it.
>
> Signed-off-by: guo ziliang <guo.ziliang@zte.com.cn>

Looks reasonable:
Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>

Is it possible to create a .config which expose this problem?
Then mention in the commit message "if you select A and B
then compilation fails..."

Yours,
Linus Walleij