Re: [PATCH v13 04/11] arm64: Split unwind_init()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 2/2/22 12:44, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 08:56:01AM -0600, madvenka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
>> +/*
>> + * TODO: document requirements here.
>> + */
>> +static inline void unwind_init_from_regs(struct unwind_state *state,
>> +					 struct pt_regs *regs)
> 
>> +/*
>> + * TODO: document requirements here.
>> + *
>> + * Note: this is always inlined, and we expect our caller to be a noinline
>> + * function, such that this starts from our caller's caller.
>> + */
>> +static __always_inline void unwind_init_from_current(struct unwind_state *state)
> 
>> +/*
>> + * TODO: document requirements here.
>> + *
>> + * The caller guarantees that the task is not running.
>> + */
>> +static inline void unwind_init_from_task(struct unwind_state *state,
>> +					 struct task_struct *task)
> 
> Other than the obvious gap this looks good to me.  For _current() I
> don't think we've got any particular requirements other than what's
> documented.  For the others I think the main thing is that trying to
> walk the stack of a task that is actively executing is going to be a bad
> idea so we should say that the task shouldn't be running, but in general
> given that one of the main use cases is printing diagnostics on error
> we shouldn't have too many *requirements* for calling these.

OK. For now, I will remove the TODO comment from individual functions.
I will add only a common general comment above all 3 helpers that
additional requirements may be documented as seen fit. And, I will
add that the task must not be running in other-directed cases.

Madhavan



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux