From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1947206AbcHRN1K (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 18 Aug 2016 09:27:10 -0400
Received: from mail-wm0-f68.google.com ([74.125.82.68]:34902 "EHLO
	mail-wm0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1950088AbcHRNZQ (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 18 Aug 2016 09:25:16 -0400
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 15:25:09 +0200
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, Brian Gerst <brgerst@gmail.com>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@lge.com>,
        Nilay Vaish <nilayvaish@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/57] x86/dumpstack: rewrite x86 stack dump code
Message-ID: <20160818132507.GD22490@lerouge>
References: <cover.1471525031.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <cover.1471525031.git.jpoimboe@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 08:05:40AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> 
> The x86 stack dump code is a bit of a mess.  dump_trace() uses
> callbacks, and each user of it seems to have slightly different
> requirements, so there are several slightly different callbacks floating
> around.
> 
> Also there are some upcoming features which will require more changes to
> the stack dump code: reliable stack detection for live patching,
> hardened user copy, and the DWARF unwinder.  Each of those features
> would at least need more callbacks and/or callback interfaces, resulting
> in a much bigger mess than what we have today.
> 
> Before doing all that, we should try to clean things up and replace
> dump_trace() with something cleaner and more flexible.
> 
> The new unwinder is a simple state machine which was heavily inspired by
> a suggestion from Andy Lutomirski:
> 
>   https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CALCETrUbNTqaM2LRyXGRx=kVLRPeY5A3Pc6k4TtQxF320rUT=w@mail.gmail.com
> 
> It's also similar to the libunwind API:
> 
>   http://www.nongnu.org/libunwind/man/libunwind(3).html
> 
> Some if its advantages:
> 
> - simplicity: no more callback sprawl and less code duplication.
> 
> - flexibility: allows the caller to stop and inspect the stack state at
>   each step in the unwinding process.
> 
> - modularity: the unwinder code, console stack dump code, and stack
>   metadata analysis code are all better separated so that changing one
>   of them shouldn't have much of an impact on any of the others.
> 
> ----
> 
> Josh Poimboeuf (57):

I am personally unable to review a 57 patches series.

Any chance you could split it into self-contained steps? In general doing so
increase the chances for reviews, accelerate merging, improve maintainance...

Thanks.