Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 5/8] s390x: Provide preliminary backtrace support

[Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>]

On 17/02/2021 15.41, Janosch Frank wrote:
> After the stack changes we can finally use -mbackchain and have a
> working backtrace.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
>   lib/s390x/interrupt.c | 12 ++++++++++++
>   lib/s390x/stack.c     | 20 ++++++++++++++------
>   s390x/Makefile        |  1 +
>   3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/s390x/interrupt.c b/lib/s390x/interrupt.c
> index a59df80e..23ad922c 100644
> --- a/lib/s390x/interrupt.c
> +++ b/lib/s390x/interrupt.c
> @@ -115,6 +115,18 @@ static void fixup_pgm_int(struct stack_frame_int *stack)
>   	/* suppressed/terminated/completed point already at the next address */
>   }
>   
> +static void print_pgm_info(struct stack_frame_int *stack)
> +
> +{
> +	printf("\n");
> +	printf("Unexpected program interrupt: %d on cpu %d at %#lx, ilen %d\n",
> +	       lc->pgm_int_code, stap(), lc->pgm_old_psw.addr,
> +	       lc->pgm_int_id);
> +	dump_stack();
> +	report_summary();
> +	abort();
> +}

I asssume this hunk should go into the next patch instead?
Or should the change to handle_pgm_int() from the next patch go into this 
patch here instead?
Otherwise you have an unused static function here and the compiler might 
complain about it (when bisecting later).

  Thomas