From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:31904 "EHLO mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2390192AbfJ2QfB (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Oct 2019 12:35:01 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0127361.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id x9TGMXM4150351 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 12:35:00 -0400 Received: from e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.100]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2vxq2yv6ea-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 12:34:59 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp04.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 16:34:57 -0000 Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 17:34:50 +0100 From: Heiko Carstens Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] s390/livepatch: Implement reliable stack tracing for the consistency model References: <20191029143904.24051-1-mbenes@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20191029143904.24051-1-mbenes@suse.cz> Message-Id: <20191029163450.GI5646@osiris> Sender: linux-s390-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Miroslav Benes Cc: gor@linux.ibm.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, jpoimboe@redhat.com, joe.lawrence@redhat.com, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jikos@kernel.org, pmladek@suse.com, nstange@suse.de, live-patching@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 03:39:01PM +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote: > - I tried to use the existing infrastructure as much as possible with > one exception. I kept unwind_next_frame_reliable() next to the > ordinary unwind_next_frame(). I did not come up with a nice solution > how to integrate it. The reliable unwinding is executed on a task > stack only, which leads to a nice simplification. My integration > attempts only obfuscated the existing unwind_next_frame() which is > already not easy to read. Ideas are definitely welcome. Ah, now I see. So patch 2 seems to be leftover(?). Could you just send how the result would look like? I'd really like to have only one function, since some of the sanity checks you added also make sense for what we already have - so code would diverge from the beginning.