On 6/27/22 11:32, Kalesh Singh wrote: > On Sun, Jun 26, 2022 at 9:33 PM Madhavan T. Venkataraman > <madvenka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >> 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 Mark, I'll take a look. > > Madhavan, I'm in the process of preparing a new version. Let me rebase > on your first 2 patches and resend, so you can look at that version > instead. > Sure thing. Thanks. Madhavan
