From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755998AbbJ1PXu (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:23:50 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:34866 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751631AbbJ1PXt (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Oct 2015 11:23:49 -0400 Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 15:23:45 +0000 From: Will Deacon To: AKASHI Takahiro Cc: catalin.marinas@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, jungseoklee85@gmail.com, olof@lixom.net, broonie@kernel.org, david.griego@linaro.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] arm64: ftrace: fix incorrect output from stack tracer Message-ID: <20151028152344.GG18966@arm.com> References: <1444298504-10392-1-git-send-email-takahiro.akashi@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1444298504-10392-1-git-send-email-takahiro.akashi@linaro.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 07:01:37PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote: > This is the third patch series for fixing stack tracer on arm64. > The original issue was reported by Jungseok[1], and then I found more > issues[2]. > (Steven, Jungseok, sorry for not replying to your comments directly.) > > I address here all the issues and implement fixes described in [2] except > for interrupt-triggered problems, ie. II-3). Recent discussions[3] about > introducing a dedicated interrupt stack suggests that we may avoid walking > through from an interrupt stack to a process stack. > (So interrupt-stack patch is a prerequisite.) > > Basically, > patch1 corresponds to the original issue. > patch2 is a proactive improvement of function_graph tracer. > patch3 corresponds to II-4(functions under function_graph tracer). > patch4 corresponds to II-5(leaf function). > patch5, 6 and 7 correspond to II-1(slurping stack) and II-2(differences > between x86 and arm64). > > Each fix can be applied independently, but if patch5, 6 and 7 are > acceptable, patch1 is not necessary because patch7 replaces a default > stack tracer. Given the comments and kbuild robot build errors, do you plan to post a new version of this series? Will