On 7/29/21 9:52 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > 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. > OK. Madhavan
