arch/arm/kernel/return_address.c:37:6: warning: symbol 'return_address' was not declared. Should it be static?
arch/arm/kernel/setup.c:76:14: warning: symbol 'processor_id' was not declared. Should it be static?
arch/arm/kernel/traps.c:259:1: warning: symbol 'die_lock' was not declared. Should it be static?
arch/arm/vfp/vfpmodule.c:156:6: warning: symbol 'vfp_raise_sigfpe' was not declared. Should it be static?
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
From: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
As __builtin_return_address(n) doesn't work for ARM with n > 0, the
kernel needs its own implementation.
This fixes many warnings saying:
warning: unsupported argument to '__builtin_return_address'
The new methods and walk_stackframe must not be instrumented because
CALLER_ADDRESSx is used in the various tracers and tracing the tracer is
a bad idea.
What's currently missing is an implementation using unwind tables. This
is not fatal though, it's just that the tracers don't get enough
information to be really useful.
Note that if both ARM_UNWIND and FRAME_POINTER are enabled,
walk_stackframe uses unwind information. So in this case the same
implementation is used as when FRAME_POINTER is disabled.
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
Russell King
Uwe Kleine-König