[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160718032510.GO2279@X58A-UD3R>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 12:25:10 +0900
From: Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc: peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, walken@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/dumpstack: Optimize save_stack_trace
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 04:44:04PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Nice improvement but how about doing that with the return value of
> stacktrace_ops::address() instead?
>
> print_context_stack_bp() uses that for example. This behaviour could
> be extended.
Yes. I will leave the change in print_context_stack_bp() unchanged back.
But frankly speaking, I thought the way to add end_walk improves
its readibility. So I am not sure which way is better. Could you any guys
give me additional opinions about the way to implement? I will follow it.
Thank you,
Byungchul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists