On 8/26/21 10:46 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 02:06:01PM -0500, madvenka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >> Renaming of unwinder functions >> ============================== > >> Rename unwinder functions to unwind_*() similar to other architectures >> for naming consistency. More on this below. > > This feels like it could probably do with splitting up a bit for > reviewability, several of these headers you've got in the commit > logs look like they could be separate commits. Splitting things > up does help with reviewability, having only one change to keep > in mind at once is a lot less cognative load. > >> Replace walk_stackframe() with unwind() >> ======================================= >> >> walk_stackframe() contains the unwinder loop that walks the stack >> frames. Currently, start_backtrace() and walk_stackframe() are called >> separately. They should be combined in the same function. Also, the >> loop in walk_stackframe() should be simplified and should look like >> the unwind loops in other architectures such as X86 and S390. > > This definitely seems like a separate change. > OK. I will take a look at splitting the patch. I am also requesting a review of the sym_code special section approach. I know that you have already approved it. I wanted one more vote. Then, I can remove the "RFC" word from the title and then it will be just a code review of the patch series. Mark Rutland, Do you also approve the idea of placing unreliable functions (from an unwind perspective) in a special section and using that in the unwinder for reliable stack trace? Thanks. Madhavan
