On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 03:39:01PM +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote: > - I tried to use the existing infrastructure as much as possible with > one exception. I kept unwind_next_frame_reliable() next to the > ordinary unwind_next_frame(). I did not come up with a nice solution > how to integrate it. The reliable unwinding is executed on a task > stack only, which leads to a nice simplification. My integration > attempts only obfuscated the existing unwind_next_frame() which is > already not easy to read. Ideas are definitely welcome. Ah, now I see. So patch 2 seems to be leftover(?). Could you just send how the result would look like? I'd really like to have only one function, since some of the sanity checks you added also make sense for what we already have - so code would diverge from the beginning.
