From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:55306 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726229AbgGQJEy (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jul 2020 05:04:54 -0400 Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 11:04:52 +0200 (CEST) From: Miroslav Benes Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] stacktrace: Remove reliable argument from arch_stack_walk() callback In-Reply-To: <20200715202821.12220-2-broonie@kernel.org> Message-ID: References: <20200715202821.12220-1-broonie@kernel.org> <20200715202821.12220-2-broonie@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-s390-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Mark Brown Cc: Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Heiko Carstens , Vasily Gorbik , Thomas Gleixner , Borislav Petkov , "H. Peter Anvin" , Christian Borntraeger , Ingo Molnar , Jiri Slaby , x86@kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 15 Jul 2020, Mark Brown wrote: > Currently the callback passed to arch_stack_walk() has an argument called > reliable passed to it to indicate if the stack entry is reliable, a comment > says that this is used by some printk() consumers. However in the current > kernel none of the arch_stack_walk() implementations ever set this flag to > true and the only callback implementation we have is in the generic > stacktrace code which ignores the flag. It therefore appears that this > flag is redundant so we can simplify and clarify things by removing it. Correct. I dug around and it seems it was the case even when it was introduced. So I wonder about the comment. I don't remember the details, maybe Thomas or someone else does. But the patch looks correct. Miroslav