On June 6, 2023 6:27:25 AM PDT, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >On Tue, Jun 06 2023 at 06:18, Xin3 Li wrote: >>> > A FRED stack frame could contain different amount of information for >>> > This approach also works for IDT, thus we unify the code. >>> >>> And thereby remove the useful comment and replace it with an undocumented >>> macro mess. >>> >>> I'm simply refusing to review this. It's not my job to understand this >>> undocumented hackery. >>> >> >> I believe it's a nice idea to allow dynamic stack frame size, at least for >> FRED. > >Believe belongs in the realm of religion. What we need here are proper >facts, explanations and justifications. Nice ideas are not helpful when >they are not having a value. > >> It's totally my bad that I didn't make it meet the minimum standards, >> I will rewrite the commit message and add better comments. >> >> After a second thought, I probably should only apply the change to FRED for >> 2 reasons, the change seems problematic with ESPFIX (which FRED >> doesn't need), > >Indeed. Making this FRED only is going to need even more justification. > >> and such corner cases are hard to test (self-tests needed?) > >There is a test. It's not that hard to find: > ># git grep -li ESPFIX tools/testing/selftests/ >tools/testing/selftests/x86/sigreturn.c > >Thanks, > > tglx For what it is worth, I am working on a FRED forward compatibly document at the moment.
