On Fri, Dec 05, 2025 at 06:14:45PM +0100, Jens Remus wrote: > @@ -159,6 +165,10 @@ static int unwind_user_next(struct unwind_user_state > *state) > if (!unwind_user_next_fp(state)) > return 0; > continue; > + case UNWIND_USER_TYPE_BACKCHAIN: > + if (!unwind_user_next_backchain(state)) > + return 0; > + continue; /* Try next method. */ > default: > WARN_ONCE(1, "Undefined unwind bit %d", bit); > break; > @@ -187,6 +197,8 @@ static int unwind_user_start(struct unwind_user_state > *state) > state->available_types |= UNWIND_USER_TYPE_SFRAME; > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_UNWIND_USER_FP)) > state->available_types |= UNWIND_USER_TYPE_FP; > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_UNWIND_USER_BACKCHAIN)) > + state->available_types |= UNWIND_USER_TYPE_BACKCHAIN;
Any reason not to just use the existing CONFIG_HAVE_UNWIND_USER_FP hook here rather than create the new BACKCHAIN one? -- Josh
