On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 10:07:10AM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > On Thu 2016-04-07 09:34:03, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 11:47:00AM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > > > On Wed 2016-04-06 11:33:56, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 03:06:19PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > > > We could even move this check into the livepatch code but then > > > print_context_stack_reliable() will not always give reliable results. > > > > Why would moving the check to the livepatch code affect the reliability > > of print_context_stack_reliable()? > > print_context_stack_reliable() is a generic function that might > eventualy be used also outside livepatch code. If there is > preempt_schedule_irq() on the stack, it means that the rest > of the stack might be unreliable and it should be detected > by the function itself. Ah, I see now. I actually thought you meant something else (moving in_preempt_schedule_irq() itself to livepatch code, but still calling it from print_context_stack_reliable()). > Let's forget the idea of moving the check into the livepatch > code :-) Agreed :-) -- Josh -- 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
