On Thu, Jul 29, 2021 at 09:06:26AM -0500, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote: > On 7/28/21 12:25 PM, Mark Rutland wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 05:33:56PM -0500, madvenka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > Since some of the above is speculative (e.g. the bit about optprobes), > > and as code will change over time, I think we should have a much terser > > comment, e.g. > > /* > > * As SYM_CODE functions don't follow the usual calling > > * conventions, we assume by default that any SYM_CODE function > > * cannot be unwound reliably. > > * > > * Note that this includes exception entry/return sequences and > > * trampoline for ftrace and kprobes. > > */ > Just to confirm, are you suggesting that I remove the entire large comment > detailing the various cases and replace the whole thing with the terse comment? > I did the large comment because of Mark Brown's input that we must be verbose > about all the cases so that it is clear in the future what the different > cases are and how we handle them in this code. As the code evolves, the comments > would evolve. I do agree with Mark that this has probably gone from one extreme to the other and could be cut back a lot - originally it didn't reference there being complicated cases like the trampoline at all IIRC so you needed external knowledge to figure out that those cases were handled.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
