Re: [PATCH v13 04/11] arm64: Split unwind_init()

["Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>]

On 2/2/22 18:26, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/2/22 12:44, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 08:56:01AM -0600, madvenka@linux.microsoft.com wrote:
>>
>>> +/*
>>> + * TODO: document requirements here.
>>> + */
>>> +static inline void unwind_init_from_regs(struct unwind_state *state,
>>> +					 struct pt_regs *regs)
>>
>>> +/*
>>> + * TODO: document requirements here.
>>> + *
>>> + * Note: this is always inlined, and we expect our caller to be a noinline
>>> + * function, such that this starts from our caller's caller.
>>> + */
>>> +static __always_inline void unwind_init_from_current(struct unwind_state *state)
>>
>>> +/*
>>> + * TODO: document requirements here.
>>> + *
>>> + * The caller guarantees that the task is not running.
>>> + */
>>> +static inline void unwind_init_from_task(struct unwind_state *state,
>>> +					 struct task_struct *task)
>>
>> Other than the obvious gap this looks good to me.  For _current() I
>> don't think we've got any particular requirements other than what's
>> documented.  For the others I think the main thing is that trying to
>> walk the stack of a task that is actively executing is going to be a bad
>> idea so we should say that the task shouldn't be running, but in general
>> given that one of the main use cases is printing diagnostics on error
>> we shouldn't have too many *requirements* for calling these.
> 
> OK. For now, I will remove the TODO comment from individual functions.
> I will add only a common general comment above all 3 helpers that
> additional requirements may be documented as seen fit. And, I will
> add that the task must not be running in other-directed cases.
> 

If what I have suggested above for comments is good enough, can I get a
Reviewed-by for this? I will fix the comments on the next send.

> Madhavan