[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YSe3WogpFIu97i/7@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2021 16:46:34 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: madvenka@...ux.microsoft.com
Cc: mark.rutland@....com, jpoimboe@...hat.com, ardb@...nel.org,
nobuta.keiya@...itsu.com, sjitindarsingh@...il.com,
catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org, jmorris@...ei.org,
pasha.tatashin@...een.com, jthierry@...hat.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
live-patching@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v8 2/4] arm64: Reorganize the unwinder code for
better consistency and maintenance
On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 02:06:01PM -0500, madvenka@...ux.microsoft.com wrote:
> Renaming of unwinder functions
> ==============================
> Rename unwinder functions to unwind_*() similar to other architectures
> for naming consistency. More on this below.
This feels like it could probably do with splitting up a bit for
reviewability, several of these headers you've got in the commit
logs look like they could be separate commits. Splitting things
up does help with reviewability, having only one change to keep
in mind at once is a lot less cognative load.
> Replace walk_stackframe() with unwind()
> =======================================
>
> walk_stackframe() contains the unwinder loop that walks the stack
> frames. Currently, start_backtrace() and walk_stackframe() are called
> separately. They should be combined in the same function. Also, the
> loop in walk_stackframe() should be simplified and should look like
> the unwind loops in other architectures such as X86 and S390.
This definitely seems like a separate change.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists