Thanks a million!
I truly appreciate your review!
On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 12:57 AM Jonathan Corbet <corbet@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 13:01:36 +0800
> Mingzhe Yang <cainiao666999@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Prior to kernel 4.9 the thread_info structure was at the bottom of
> > the kernel stack. kernel 4.9 moved it into the task_struct.
> >
> > See commits c65eacb ("sched/core: Allow putting thread_info into
> > task_struct"), 15f4eae ("x86: Move thread_info into task_struct")
> > and 883d50f ("scripts/gdb: fix get_thread_info").
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mingzhe Yang <cainiao666999@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Documentation/x86/kernel-stacks.rst | 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/x86/kernel-stacks.rst b/Documentation/x86/kernel-stacks.rst
> > index 6b0bcf0..e9097f3 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/x86/kernel-stacks.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/x86/kernel-stacks.rst
> > @@ -15,7 +15,8 @@ Like all other architectures, x86_64 has a kernel stack for every
> > active thread. These thread stacks are THREAD_SIZE (2*PAGE_SIZE) big.
> > These stacks contain useful data as long as a thread is alive or a
> > zombie. While the thread is in user space the kernel stack is empty
> > -except for the thread_info structure at the bottom.
> > +except for the thread_info structure at the bottom (since kernel 4.9,
> > +the thread_info structure has been moved into task_struct).
>
> So this has been sitting in my inbox for a bit, sorry. This seems worth
> fixing, but is this the correct fix? The documentation should reflect the
> current kernel, rather than what once was with a "(it's not actually that
> way anymore)" note. Is the kernel stack truly empty now? If so we should
> just say that; otherwise say what's lurking there in current kernels.
>
> Thanks,
>
> jon
