From: Heiko Carstens <email@example.com>
To: Miroslav Benes <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com,
firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] s390/livepatch: Implement reliable stack tracing for the consistency model
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 16:24:49 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191031152449.GA6133@osiris> (raw)
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 11:12:00AM +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Oct 2019, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 03:39:01PM +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote:
> > > - I tried to use the existing infrastructure as much as possible with
> > > one exception. I kept unwind_next_frame_reliable() next to the
> > > ordinary unwind_next_frame(). I did not come up with a nice solution
> > > how to integrate it. The reliable unwinding is executed on a task
> > > stack only, which leads to a nice simplification. My integration
> > > attempts only obfuscated the existing unwind_next_frame() which is
> > > already not easy to read. Ideas are definitely welcome.
> > Ah, now I see. So patch 2 seems to be leftover(?). Could you just send
> > how the result would look like?
> > I'd really like to have only one function, since some of the sanity
> > checks you added also make sense for what we already have - so code
> > would diverge from the beginning.
> Ok, that is understandable. I tried a bit harder and the outcome does not
> look as bad as my previous attempts (read, I gave up too early).
> I deliberately split unwind_reliable/!unwind_reliable case in "No
> back-chain, look for a pt_regs structure" branch, because the purpose is
> different there. In !unwind_reliable case we can continue on a different
> stack (if I understood the code correctly when I analyzed it in the past.
> I haven't found a good documentation unfortunately :(). While in
> unwind_realiable case we just check if there are pt_regs in the right
> place on a task stack and stop. If there are not, error out.
> It applies on top of the patch set. Only compile tested though. If it
> looks ok-ish to you, I'll work on it.
Yes, that looks much better. Note, from a coding style perspective the
80 characters per line limit is _not_ enforced on s390 kernel code; so
that might be a possibility to make the code a bit more readable.
Also it _might_ make sense to split the function into two or more
functions (without duplicating code). Not sure if that would really
increase readability though.
FWIW, I just applied your first patch, since it makes sense anyway.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-31 15:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-29 14:39 [PATCH v2 0/3] s390/livepatch: Implement reliable stack tracing for the consistency model Miroslav Benes
2019-10-29 14:39 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] s390/unwind: drop unnecessary code around calling ftrace_graph_ret_addr() Miroslav Benes
2019-10-29 14:39 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] s390/unwind: prepare the unwinding interface for reliable stack traces Miroslav Benes
2019-10-29 14:39 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] s390/livepatch: Implement reliable stack tracing for the consistency model Miroslav Benes
2019-10-29 16:17 ` Heiko Carstens
2019-10-30 10:05 ` Miroslav Benes
2019-10-29 16:34 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] " Heiko Carstens
2019-10-30 10:12 ` Miroslav Benes
2019-10-31 15:24 ` Heiko Carstens [this message]
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).