All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, jpoimboe@redhat.com, ardb@kernel.org,
	jthierry@redhat.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org,
	jmorris@namei.org, pasha.tatashin@soleen.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 1/2] arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability checks in the unwinder
Date: Tue, 25 May 2021 16:44:44 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <7f9366bd-1973-bc07-5314-45792f256dc1@linux.microsoft.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210521175318.GF5825@sirena.org.uk>



On 5/21/21 12:53 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 12:47:13PM -0500, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:
>> On 5/21/21 12:42 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
>>> Like I say we may come up with some use for the flag in error cases in
>>> future so I'm not opposed to keeping the accounting there.
> 
>> So, should I leave it the way it is now? Or should I not set reliable = false
>> for errors? Which one do you prefer?
> 
>> Josh,
> 
>> Are you OK with not flagging reliable = false for errors in unwind_frame()?
> 
> I think it's fine to leave it as it is.
> 

OK. I will address the comments so far and send out v5.

Thanks.

Madhavan

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, jpoimboe@redhat.com, ardb@kernel.org,
	jthierry@redhat.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org,
	jmorris@namei.org, pasha.tatashin@soleen.com,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 1/2] arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability checks in the unwinder
Date: Tue, 25 May 2021 16:44:44 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <7f9366bd-1973-bc07-5314-45792f256dc1@linux.microsoft.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210521175318.GF5825@sirena.org.uk>



On 5/21/21 12:53 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 12:47:13PM -0500, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:
>> On 5/21/21 12:42 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
>>> Like I say we may come up with some use for the flag in error cases in
>>> future so I'm not opposed to keeping the accounting there.
> 
>> So, should I leave it the way it is now? Or should I not set reliable = false
>> for errors? Which one do you prefer?
> 
>> Josh,
> 
>> Are you OK with not flagging reliable = false for errors in unwind_frame()?
> 
> I think it's fine to leave it as it is.
> 

OK. I will address the comments so far and send out v5.

Thanks.

Madhavan

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-05-25 21:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <68eeda61b3e9579d65698a884b26c8632025e503>
2021-05-16  4:00 ` [RFC PATCH v4 0/2] arm64: Stack trace reliability checks in the unwinder madvenka
2021-05-16  4:00   ` madvenka
2021-05-16  4:00   ` [RFC PATCH v4 1/2] arm64: Introduce stack " madvenka
2021-05-16  4:00     ` madvenka
2021-05-21 16:11     ` Mark Brown
2021-05-21 16:11       ` Mark Brown
2021-05-21 17:23       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-21 17:23         ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-21 17:42         ` Mark Brown
2021-05-21 17:42           ` Mark Brown
2021-05-21 17:47           ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-21 17:47             ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-21 17:53             ` Mark Brown
2021-05-21 17:53               ` Mark Brown
2021-05-21 18:48               ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-05-21 18:48                 ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-05-21 18:59                 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-21 18:59                   ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-21 19:11                   ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-05-21 19:11                     ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-05-21 19:16                     ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-05-21 19:16                       ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-05-21 19:41                       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-21 19:41                         ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-21 20:08                         ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-05-21 20:08                           ` Josh Poimboeuf
2021-05-25 21:44               ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman [this message]
2021-05-25 21:44                 ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-16  4:00   ` [RFC PATCH v4 2/2] arm64: Create a list of SYM_CODE functions, blacklist them " madvenka
2021-05-16  4:00     ` madvenka
2021-05-19  2:06     ` nobuta.keiya
2021-05-19  2:06       ` nobuta.keiya
2021-05-19  3:38       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-19  3:38         ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-19 19:27     ` Mark Brown
2021-05-19 19:27       ` Mark Brown
2021-05-20  2:00       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-20  2:00         ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-21 17:18   ` [RFC PATCH v4 0/2] arm64: Stack trace reliability checks " Mark Brown
2021-05-21 17:18     ` Mark Brown
2021-05-21 17:32     ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-21 17:32       ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-21 17:47       ` Mark Brown
2021-05-21 17:47         ` Mark Brown
2021-05-21 17:48         ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman
2021-05-21 17:48           ` Madhavan T. Venkataraman

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=7f9366bd-1973-bc07-5314-45792f256dc1@linux.microsoft.com \
    --to=madvenka@linux.microsoft.com \
    --cc=ardb@kernel.org \
    --cc=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=jmorris@namei.org \
    --cc=jpoimboe@redhat.com \
    --cc=jthierry@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=live-patching@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=pasha.tatashin@soleen.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.