Hi, Hong
Thank you for the patch. I added the comments below, other changes look
good to me.
@@ -1978,7 +2028,10 @@ arm64_in_exception_text(ulong ptr)
if ((ptr >= ms->__exception_text_start) &&
(ptr < ms->__exception_text_end))
return TRUE;
- } else if ((name = closest_symbol(ptr))) { /* Linux 5.5 and later
*/
+ }
+
+ name = closest_symbol(ptr);
+ if (name != NULL) { /* Linux 5.5 and later */
The above changes are irrelevant to your patch itself. But anyway this
looks more readable to me.
for (func = &arm64_exception_functions[0]; *func; func++) {
if (STREQ(name, *func))
return TRUE;
@@ -2255,12 +2308,14 @@ arm64_unwind_frame(struct bt_info *bt, struct
arm64_stackframe *frame)
if (!(machdep->flags & IRQ_STACKS))
return TRUE;
- if (!(machdep->flags & IRQ_STACKS))
+ if (!(machdep->flags & OVERFLOW_STACKS))
return TRUE;
Originally, it had two same(repeated) statements, one of which must be
redundant. This time, can it be changed to a statement as below?
if (!(machdep->flags & (IRQ_STACKS | OVERFLOW_STACKS)))
return TRUE;
BTW: this patch was sent as an attachment, which is inconvenient for other
reviewers to add comments.
In addition, I have a request: can you share the vmcore with me if it
doesn't have confidential data? I'm collecting the specific vmcore
for the test, at least I haven't reproduced it.
Thanks.
Lianbo