On Thu, Jul 10, 2025 at 06:35:18PM +0200, Jens Remus wrote:
> @@ -66,12 +73,20 @@ static int unwind_user_next(struct unwind_user_state *state)
> /* sframe expects the frame to be local storage */
> frame = &_frame;
> if (sframe_find(state->ip, frame, topmost)) {
> - if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_UNWIND_USER_FP))
> - goto done;
> - frame = &fp_frame;
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_UNWIND_USER_FP)) {
> + frame = &fp_frame;
> + } else if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HAVE_UNWIND_USER_BACKCHAIN)) {
> + if (unwind_user_backchain_next(state))
> + goto done;
> + goto done_backchain;
> + }
> }
> } else if (fp_state(state)) {
> frame = &fp_frame;
> + } else if (backchain_state(state)) {
> + if (unwind_user_backchain_next(state))
> + goto done;
> + goto done_backchain;
> } else {
> goto done;
> }
> @@ -153,6 +168,7 @@ static int unwind_user_next(struct unwind_user_state *state)
>
> arch_unwind_user_next(state);
>
> +done_backchain:
> state->topmost = false;
> return 0;
This feels very grafted on, is there not some way to make it more
generic, i.e., to just work with CONFIG_HAVE_UNWIND_USER_FP?
Also, if distros aren't even compiling with -mbackchain, I wonder if we
can just not do this altogether :-)
--
Josh
