On 6/24/22 00:19, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote: > > > On 6/23/22 12:32, Will Deacon wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 04:07:11PM -0500, madvenka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>> From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> I have synced this patch series to v5.19-rc2. >>> I have also removed the following patch. >>> >>> [PATCH v14 7/7] arm64: Select HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE >>> >>> as HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE depends on STACK_VALIDATION which is not present >>> yet. This patch will be added in the future once Objtool is enhanced to >>> provide stack validation in some form. >> >> Given that it's not at all obvious that we're going to end up using objtool >> for arm64, does this patch series gain us anything in isolation? >> > > BTW, I have synced my patchset to 5.19-rc2 and sent it as v15. Sorry. What I wanted to say was that in v15 I have removed the patch titled: arm64: Select HAVE_RELIABLE_STACKTRACE since objtool changes are not in place. Apologies. Madhavan > > So, to answer your question, patches 1 thru 3 in v15 are still useful even if we don't > consider reliable stacktrace. These patches reorganize the unwinder code based on > comments from both Mark Rutland and Mark Brown. Mark Brown has already OKed them. > If Mark Rutland OKes them, we should upstream them. > > I can drop patches 4 thru 6. Actually, the objtool patch series that I have > sent separately for supporting livepatch already addresses reliability. So, if that > gets reviewed and accepted, we don't even need patches 4 thru 6. > > If you are OK with that, I can resend v16 with just patches 1 thru 3. Let me know. > > Madhavan >
