From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 13:22:10 +0000
Subject: [PATCH v6 2/6] arm64: pass a task parameter to unwind_frame()
In-Reply-To: <56553B88.6090507@linaro.org>
References: <1447828989-4980-1-git-send-email-takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>
 <1447828989-4980-3-git-send-email-takahiro.akashi@linaro.org>
 <70D4F7ED-B4CF-4AC0-B85A-2491786847FC@gmail.com>
 <56553B88.6090507@linaro.org>
Message-ID: <20151202132209.GA5829@arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 01:39:36PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> On 11/24/2015 10:42 PM, Jungseok Lee wrote:
> >On Nov 18, 2015, at 3:43 PM, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> >>The change here doesn't make any difference in this patch, but is
> >>a preparation for later fixing a problem where stacktrace functions,
> >>unwind_frame() and walk_stackframe(), may return useless call stacks
> >>under function graph tracer.
> >
> >I'm aligned with the argument. The case cannot be handled correctly
> >without ret_stack[] of struct task_struct.
> 
> Thanks. I will add some description about why we need 'tsk' in a commit
> message.

Ok, so are you planning to repost this series?

Will