From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754906AbbHDHmH (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Aug 2015 03:42:07 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f50.google.com ([209.85.220.50]:35930 "EHLO mail-pa0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752679AbbHDHmE (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Aug 2015 03:42:04 -0400 Message-ID: <55C06CC3.5090603@linaro.org> Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 16:41:55 +0900 From: AKASHI Takahiro User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steven Rostedt , Jungseok Lee CC: Will Deacon , Mark Rutland , Catalin Marinas , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "broonie@kernel.org" , "david.griego@linaro.org" , "olof@lixom.net" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Subject: Re: [RFC 2/3] arm64: refactor save_stack_trace() References: <12F47692-3010-4886-B87D-3D7820609177@gmail.com> <20150716113115.45a17f17@gandalf.local.home> <20150716121658.7982fdf5@gandalf.local.home> <20150717124054.GE26091@leverpostej> <20150717090009.720f6bd0@gandalf.local.home> <77EA0F10-D5F6-48BD-8652-3B979A978659@gmail.com> <20150717104144.6588b2f7@gandalf.local.home> <0886A996-40E1-49E9-823C-85E55A858716@gmail.com> <1357EA74-B972-4B99-ADB0-BC7E8F06DDB5@gmail.com> <20150720162004.GL9908@arm.com> <20150803090951.GA10501@arm.com> <20150803125711.65463359@gandalf.local.home> <24AFDCDB-55DE-4A23-A26A-750B48AC365C@gmail.com> <20150803133220.46db9839@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <20150803133220.46db9839@gandalf.local.home> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 08/04/2015 02:32 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 02:22:16 +0900 > Jungseok Lee wrote: > > >> It would be better to add the snippet when a new version is ready. >> That way might help to figure out easily why the macro is introduced and how >> it can be used in architecture code. > > > OK, which ever. I'm making best efforts to fix the problem, but it seems to me that the current check_stack() doesn't fit to arm64 due to the differences in stack frame usage on architectures. Although my current patch doesn't solve all the issues I've noticed so far, I'd like to get any comments about whether I'm doing it the right way. Please take a look at my new vesion (v2) of RFC. Thanks, -Takahiro AKASHI > -- Steve > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: takahiro.akashi@linaro.org (AKASHI Takahiro) Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 16:41:55 +0900 Subject: [RFC 2/3] arm64: refactor save_stack_trace() In-Reply-To: <20150803133220.46db9839@gandalf.local.home> References: <12F47692-3010-4886-B87D-3D7820609177@gmail.com> <20150716113115.45a17f17@gandalf.local.home> <20150716121658.7982fdf5@gandalf.local.home> <20150717124054.GE26091@leverpostej> <20150717090009.720f6bd0@gandalf.local.home> <77EA0F10-D5F6-48BD-8652-3B979A978659@gmail.com> <20150717104144.6588b2f7@gandalf.local.home> <0886A996-40E1-49E9-823C-85E55A858716@gmail.com> <1357EA74-B972-4B99-ADB0-BC7E8F06DDB5@gmail.com> <20150720162004.GL9908@arm.com> <20150803090951.GA10501@arm.com> <20150803125711.65463359@gandalf.local.home> <24AFDCDB-55DE-4A23-A26A-750B48AC365C@gmail.com> <20150803133220.46db9839@gandalf.local.home> Message-ID: <55C06CC3.5090603@linaro.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 08/04/2015 02:32 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 02:22:16 +0900 > Jungseok Lee wrote: > > >> It would be better to add the snippet when a new version is ready. >> That way might help to figure out easily why the macro is introduced and how >> it can be used in architecture code. > > > OK, which ever. I'm making best efforts to fix the problem, but it seems to me that the current check_stack() doesn't fit to arm64 due to the differences in stack frame usage on architectures. Although my current patch doesn't solve all the issues I've noticed so far, I'd like to get any comments about whether I'm doing it the right way. Please take a look at my new vesion (v2) of RFC. Thanks, -Takahiro AKASHI > -- Steve >