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: NUwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: NRussell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>

This patch changes the walk_stacktrace and its callers for easier
integration of stack unwinding. The arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.h file is
also moved to arch/arm/include/asm/stacktrace.h.
Signed-off-by: NCatalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Signed-off-by: NRussell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>

Andrew Morton reported this against linux-next:

ERROR: ".save_stack_trace" [tests/backtracetest.ko] undefined!
Reported-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: NIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>

Available for !SMP only at the moment.

From Russell:

|Basically, if a thread is running on a CPU, thread_saved_fp() is invalid.
|So, the question is: what guarantees do we have here that 'tsk' is not
|running on another CPU?
Signed-off-by: NNicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
Tested-by: NLennert Buytenhek <buytenh@marvell.com>
Signed-off-by: NLennert Buytenhek <buytenh@marvell.com>

Fix an oops in the stacktrace code, caused by improper range checking.
We subtract 12 off 'fp' before testing to see if it's below the low
bound.  However, if 'fp' were zero before, it becomes a very large
positive number, causing this test to succeed where it should fail.
Signed-off-by: NRussell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>

oprofile depends on having it
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>

ab1b6f03 said

 - remove the unused task argument to save_stack_trace, it's always current

then broke arm:

arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c:56: error: conflicting types for 'save_stack_trace'
include/linux/stacktrace.h:11: error: previous declaration of 'save_stack_trace' was here
arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c:56: error: conflicting types for 'save_stack_trace'
include/linux/stacktrace.h:11: error: previous declaration of 'save_stack_trace' was here

Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: NRussell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>

Add support for stacktrace.  Use the new stacktrace code with
oprofile instead of it's version; there's no point having
multiple versions of stacktracing in the kernel.
Signed-off-by: NRussell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>