On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:13 PM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 02:27:30PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 2:19 PM Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 02:05:56PM -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > > > > Have you tested it ? > > > > I really doubt, since in my test both CONFIG_UNWINDER_ORC and > > > > CONFIG_UNWINDER_FRAME_POINTER failed to unwind through such odd frame. > > > > > > Hm, are you seeing selftest failures? They seem to work for me. > > > > > > > Here is much simple patch that I mentioned in the email yesterday, > > > > but you failed to listen instead of focusing on perceived 'code readability'. > > > > > > > > It makes one proper frame and both frame and orc unwinders are happy. > > > > > > I'm on my way out the door and I just skimmed it, but it looks fine. > > > > > > Some of the code and patch description look familiar, please be sure to > > > give me proper credit. > > > > credit means something positive. > > So you only give credit for *good* stolen code. I must have missed that > section of the kernel patch guidelines. what are you talking about? you've posted one bad patch. I pointed out multiple issues in it. Then proposed another bad idea. I pointed out another set of issues. Than David proposed yet another idea that you've implemented and claimed that it's working when it was not. Then I got fed up with this thread and fix it for real by reverting that old commit that I mentioned way earlier. https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1116307/ Where do you see your code or ideas being used? I see none.
