Re: [RFC patch 29/41] btrfs: ref-verify: Simplify stack trace retrieval

[Johannes Thumshirn]

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 12:28:23PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Replace the indirection through struct stack_trace with an invocation of
> the storage array based interface.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Chris Mason <clm@xxxxxx>
> Cc: Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ---
>  fs/btrfs/ref-verify.c |   15 ++-------------
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> 
> --- a/fs/btrfs/ref-verify.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/ref-verify.c
> @@ -205,28 +205,17 @@ static struct root_entry *lookup_root_en
>  #ifdef CONFIG_STACKTRACE
>  static void __save_stack_trace(struct ref_action *ra)
>  {
> -	struct stack_trace stack_trace;
> -
> -	stack_trace.max_entries = MAX_TRACE;
> -	stack_trace.nr_entries = 0;
> -	stack_trace.entries = ra->trace;
> -	stack_trace.skip = 2;
> -	save_stack_trace(&stack_trace);
> -	ra->trace_len = stack_trace.nr_entries;
> +	ra->trace_len = stack_trace_save(ra->trace, MAX_TRACE, 2);


Stupid question: why are you passing a '2' for 'skipnr' and in
stack_trace_save() from your series you set stack_trace::skip as skipnr + 1. 

Wouldn't this result in a stack_trace::skip = 3? Or is it the number of
functions to be skipped and you don't want to have stack_trace_save() saved as
well? 

Thanks,
	Johannes
-- 
Johannes Thumshirn                            SUSE Labs Filesystems
jthumshirn@xxxxxxx                                +49 911 74053 689
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Mary Higgins, Sri Rasiah
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
Key fingerprint = EC38 9CAB C2C4 F25D 8600 D0D0 0393 969D 2D76 0850