[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200902173803.GE6162@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2020 18:38:03 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Miroslav Benes <mbenes@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] arm64: Convert to ARCH_STACKWALK
On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 05:06:26PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Just to check, has the skipping logic been tested to work equivalently
> to what we had before? By inspection I think it should, but since it
> relies on function call boundaries it always strikes me as fragile.
> If you could confirm that (e.g. with LKDTM perhaps?) that'd be great.
> Assuming that looks right, for the series:
I've tested this with LKDTM and otherwise and didn't spot any issues
(and just did a bit of retesting) but it is a pretty manual process so
it's possible I missed something.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists