From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: takahiro.akashi@linaro.org (AKASHI Takahiro)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 15:33:45 +0900
Subject: [PATCH v6 2/6] arm64: pass a task parameter to unwind_frame()
In-Reply-To: <76F4287D-763C-4EBD-BB67-822D733AAB08@gmail.com>
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> <20151202132209.GA5829@arm.com>
 <76F4287D-763C-4EBD-BB67-822D733AAB08@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56691CC9.2090500@linaro.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 12/03/2015 12:33 AM, Jungseok Lee wrote:
> On Dec 2, 2015, at 10:22 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
>> 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?
>
> I think this function_graph changes could be factored out from this series.
> It would be helpful for maintainers and reviewers to take a look at them.

Yeah, now patch1, 2 and 3 are almost independent from patch 4, 5 and 6.
But I will submit them in one series, at least, for my next version.
Will, if this is inconvenient to you, let me know.

Thanks,
-Takahiro AKASHI

> Best Regards
> Jungseok Lee
>