[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YZd6+SFZVzTeX45f@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 11:22:49 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Holger Hoffst??tte <holger@...lied-asynchrony.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Justin Forbes <jmforbes@...uxtx.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, patches@...nelci.org,
lkft-triage@...ts.linaro.org, Pavel Machek <pavel@...x.de>,
Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Pin task-stack in __get_wchan()
On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 06:02:50PM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote:
> This implementation is very similar to stack_trace_save_tsk(), maybe we
> can just move stack_trace_save_tsk() out of CONFIG_STACKTRACE and reuse
> it.
No, we want to move away from the stack_trace_*() API because it has
very unclear semantics and various arch implementations differ in
details.
There's a patch that untangles arch_stack_walk*() from CONFIG_STACKTRACE
and we can eventually use that.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists