Hi Petr, On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 03:02:31PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote: > On Fri 2021-01-15 17:16:17, Mark Brown wrote: > > I've made a few assumptions about preferred behaviour, notably: > > > > * If you can reliably unwind through exceptions, you should (as x86_64 > > does). IIRC this was confirmed as desireable, and the text already reflects this. > > * It's fine to omit ftrace_return_to_handler and other return > > trampolines so long as these are not subject to patching and the > > original return address is reported. Most architectures do this for > > ftrace_return_handler, but not other return trampolines. Likewise I think we agreed this was fine, given these were not themselves subkect to patching. > > * For cases where link register unreliability could result in duplicate > > entries in the trace or an inverted trace, I've assumed this should be > > treated as unreliable. This specific case shouldn't matter to > > livepatching, but I assume that that we want a reliable trace to have > > the correct order. I don't think we had any comments either way on this, but I think it's sane to say this for now and later relax it if we need to. ... so I reckon we can just delete all this as Josh suggests. Any acks for the patch itself tacitly agrees with these points. :) Thanks, Mark.
