* Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote:
> -struct unwind_task_info {
> +struct unwind_cache {
> unsigned long *entries;
> + unsigned int nr_entries;
> +};
> +
> +struct unwind_task_info {
> + struct unwind_cache cache;
> };
> @@ -19,17 +20,29 @@ int unwind_deferred_trace(struct unwind_stacktrace *trace)
> if (current->flags & PF_EXITING)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> - if (!info->entries) {
> - info->entries = kmalloc_array(UNWIND_MAX_ENTRIES,
> sizeof(long),
> - GFP_KERNEL);
> - if (!info->entries)
> - return -ENOMEM;
> + if (!cache->entries) {
> + cache->entries = kmalloc_array(UNWIND_MAX_ENTRIES, sizeof(long),
> + GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!cache->entries)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> + }
That's just sloppy: why isn't the unwind_cache a pointer to begin with,
with the dynamically allocated object containing ::nr_entries?
Also, the code has whitespace damage.
> +
> + trace->entries = cache->entries;
> +
> + if (cache->nr_entries) {
> + /*
> + * The user stack has already been previously unwound in this
> + * entry context. Skip the unwind and use the cache.
> + */
> + trace->nr = cache->nr_entries;
> + return 0;
Whitespace damage here too. Maybe in other patches as well.
Please don't rush this series without first reviewing it carefully ...
Thanks,
Ingo
