[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrX__ma6UgDAM2iwgih58mWAWOUm=jrg8-+30wFz2Awohw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2016 15:05:01 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/19] x86/dumpstack: simplify in_exception_stack()
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
> in_exception_stack() does some bad, bad things just so the unwinder can
> print different values for different areas of the debug exception stack.
>
> There's no need to clarify where exactly on the stack it is. Just print
> "#DB" and be done with it.
This is a huge improvement.
However: could you add a comment clarifying what purpose visit_mask serves?
FWIW, I have patches that remove the extra debug stacks, and they'll
be nicer on top of this.
--Andy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists