From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com>
Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Alexey Gladkov <gladkov.alexey@gmail.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
"Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>,
Andrei Vagin <avagin@gmail.com>,
Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de>,
John Johansen <john.johansen@canonical.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] proc: get_wchan() stack unwind only makes sense for sleeping/non-self tasks
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2020 21:08:45 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201106210845.e9e95e91b779a01b6751e240@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201105231132.2130132-1-vgupta@synopsys.com>
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 15:11:32 -0800 Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com> wrote:
> Most architectures currently check this in their get_wchan() implementation
> (ARC doesn't hence this patch). However doing this in core code shows
> the semantics better so move the check one level up (eventually remove
> the boiler-plate code from arches)
It would be nice to clean up the arch callees in the same patch, at
least so it doesn't get forgotten about. Are you prepared to propose
such a change?
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-07 5:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-05 23:11 [RFC] proc: get_wchan() stack unwind only makes sense for sleeping/non-self tasks Vineet Gupta
2020-11-07 5:08 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
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=20201106210845.e9e95e91b779a01b6751e240@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com \
--cc=adobriyan@gmail.com \
--cc=avagin@gmail.com \
--cc=bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=gladkov.alexey@gmail.com \
--cc=john.johansen@canonical.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=walken@google.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).