[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LSU.2.21.1910301104230.18400@pobox.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2019 11:05:45 +0100 (CET)
From: Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
To: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
cc: gor@...ux.ibm.com, borntraeger@...ibm.com, jpoimboe@...hat.com,
joe.lawrence@...hat.com, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jikos@...nel.org, pmladek@...e.com,
nstange@...e.de, live-patching@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] s390/livepatch: Implement reliable stack tracing
for the consistency model
On Tue, 29 Oct 2019, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> Hi Miroslav,
>
> > +bool unwind_next_frame_reliable(struct unwind_state *state)
> > +{
> ...
> > +}
> > +
> > void __unwind_start(struct unwind_state *state, struct task_struct *task,
> > struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long sp,
> > bool unwind_reliable)
>
> Did you send the wrong version of your patch series? This patch does
> not integrate your new function into the existing one. Also the new
> parameter you added with the second patch isn't used at all.
No, the version should be correct. Only __unwind_start_reliable() was
integrated. The new parameter is used in arch_stack_walk_reliable()
(unwind_reliable is set to true) and it is propagated to get_stack_info()
where it is used to simplify things for the case.
Miroslav
Powered by blists - more mailing lists