On 6/26/22 04:18, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 12:19:01AM -0500, 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. >> >> 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. > > Sorry for the delay; I have been rather swamped recently and haven't had the > time to give this the time it needs. > > I'm happy with patches 1 and 2, and I've acked those in case Will wants to pick > them. > > Kalesh (cc'd) is working to share the unwinder code with hyp, and I think that > we need to take a step back and consider how we can make the design work > cleanly with that. I'd had a go at prototyping making the unwinder more data > driven, but I haven't come up with something satisfactory so far. > > It would be good if you could look at / comment on each others series. > I will review Kalesh's unwinder changes. Thanks. Madhavan
