[PATCHv2 1/2] oprofile, x86: using struct stack_frame for 64bit processes dump
From: Jiri Olsa
Date: Wed Sep 29 2010 - 10:47:05 EST
Removing unnecessary struct frame_head and replacing it with
struct stack_frame.
The struct stack_frame is already defined and used in other places
in kernel, so there's no reason to define new structure.
wbr,
jirka
Signed-off-by: Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/x86/oprofile/backtrace.c | 19 +++++++------------
1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/x86/oprofile/backtrace.c b/arch/x86/oprofile/backtrace.c
index 3855096..d640a86 100644
--- a/arch/x86/oprofile/backtrace.c
+++ b/arch/x86/oprofile/backtrace.c
@@ -48,35 +48,30 @@ static struct stacktrace_ops backtrace_ops = {
.walk_stack = print_context_stack,
};
-struct frame_head {
- struct frame_head *bp;
- unsigned long ret;
-} __attribute__((packed));
-
-static struct frame_head *dump_user_backtrace(struct frame_head *head)
+static struct stack_frame *dump_user_backtrace(struct stack_frame *head)
{
- struct frame_head bufhead[2];
+ struct stack_frame bufhead[2];
- /* Also check accessibility of one struct frame_head beyond */
+ /* Also check accessibility of one struct stack_frame beyond */
if (!access_ok(VERIFY_READ, head, sizeof(bufhead)))
return NULL;
if (__copy_from_user_inatomic(bufhead, head, sizeof(bufhead)))
return NULL;
- oprofile_add_trace(bufhead[0].ret);
+ oprofile_add_trace(bufhead[0].return_address);
/* frame pointers should strictly progress back up the stack
* (towards higher addresses) */
- if (head >= bufhead[0].bp)
+ if (head >= bufhead[0].next_frame)
return NULL;
- return bufhead[0].bp;
+ return bufhead[0].next_frame;
}
void
x86_backtrace(struct pt_regs * const regs, unsigned int depth)
{
- struct frame_head *head = (struct frame_head *)frame_pointer(regs);
+ struct stack_frame *head = (struct stack_frame *)frame_pointer(regs);
if (!user_mode_vm(regs)) {
unsigned long stack = kernel_stack_pointer(regs);
--
1.7.1
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/