From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jungseoklee85@gmail.com (Jungseok Lee) Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 01:30:50 +0900 Subject: [RFC 2/3] arm64: refactor save_stack_trace() In-Reply-To: <20150803090951.GA10501@arm.com> References: <12F47692-3010-4886-B87D-3D7820609177@gmail.com> <20150716113115.45a17f17@gandalf.local.home> <20150716121658.7982fdf5@gandalf.local.home> <20150717124054.GE26091@leverpostej> <20150717090009.720f6bd0@gandalf.local.home> <77EA0F10-D5F6-48BD-8652-3B979A978659@gmail.com> <20150717104144.6588b2f7@gandalf.local.home> <0886A996-40E1-49E9-823C-85E55A858716@gmail.com> <1357EA74-B972-4B99-ADB0-BC7E8F06DDB5@gmail.com> <20150720162004.GL9908@arm.com> <20150803090951.GA10501@arm.com> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Aug 3, 2015, at 6:09 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > Hi guys, Hi Will, > On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 05:20:04PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 04:34:21PM +0100, Jungseok Lee wrote: >>> On Jul 17, 2015, at 11:59 PM, Jungseok Lee wrote: >>>> On Jul 17, 2015, at 11:41 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote: >>>>> Thanks! Can you repost patch 1 with the changes I recommended, so that >>>>> I can get an Acked-by from the arm64 maintainers and pull all the >>>>> changes in together. This is fine for a 4.3 release, right? That is, it >>>>> doesn't need to go into 4.2-rcs. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It's not hard to repost a patch, but I feel like we have to wait for Akashi's response. >>>> Also, it might be needed to consider Mark's comment on arch part. >>>> >>>> If they are okay, I will proceed. >>> >>> The [RFC 1/3] patch used in my environment is shaped as follows. >>> I leave the hunk for *only* clear synchronization. This is why I choose this format >>> instead of reposting a patch. I hope it would help to track down this thread. >>> >>> I think this is my best at this point. > > [...] > >> The arm64 bits look fine to me: >> >> Acked-by: Will Deacon > > What happened to this? Is it queued someplace, or are we waiting for a > new version? There are two issues in the current version. 1) The change does not work correctly when function_graph feature is enabled. 2) Akashi have raised an issue that size field of stack tracer is inaccurate. So, I think this patch set is not ready yet. Best Regards Jungseok Lee