Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm: make return_address available for ARM_UNWIND

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 07:12:29PM +0900, kpark3469@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> -#if defined(CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER) && !defined(CONFIG_ARM_UNWIND)
> +#if defined(CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER) || defined(CONFIG_ARM_UNWIND)
>  /*
>   * return_address uses walk_stackframe to do it's work.  If both
>   * CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER=y and CONFIG_ARM_UNWIND=y walk_stackframe uses unwind
> - * information.  For this to work in the function tracer many functions would
> - * have to be marked with __notrace.  So for now just depend on
> - * !CONFIG_ARM_UNWIND.

So what have you done about the issue referred in this comment?  Or do you
believe that fixing warnings (even if they are explicit #warning statements)
is far more important than code being functionally correct?
--
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/