* Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Well, I can't say that I'm crazy about all those new tools adding markers to > > unrelated kernel code. > > > > Can't you teach stacktool to ignore the whole machine_real_restart() function > > simply? > > Well, these STACKTOOL_IGNORE whitelist markers are only needed in a handful of > places, and only for code that does very weird things. Yes, they're a bit ugly, > but IMO they also communicate valuable information: "be careful, this code does > something very weird." How common are these markers? Like with lockdep, it all depends on magnitude: - If it's less than 10 I'd say it's OK. - If it's dozens then it's ho-hum. - If certain types of annotations can go over 100, then they are unacceptable. all such in-code overhead has to be balanced against the utility of the tooling. > As for whether to put the whitelist info in the code vs hard-coding it in > stacktool, I think it's clearer and less "magical" to put them directly in the > code. That's true - but I think Boris tried to ask something slightly different: can stacktool be taught to detect weird signatures automatically, and to ignore them automatically? Stuff like 16-bit code sure wounds 'weird' and the tool could detect that? Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe live-patching" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
