On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 05:53:10PM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 05:59:33PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

> > Some more explict pointer to live patching as the only user would
> > definitely be good but I think the more important thing would be writing
> > down any assumptions in the API that aren't already written down and

> Something like so?

Yeah, looks reasonable - it'll need rebasing against current code as I
moved the docs in the source out of the arch code into the header this
cycle (they were copied verbatim in a couple of places).

>  #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_STACKWALK
>  
>  /**
> - * stack_trace_consume_fn - Callback for arch_stack_walk()
> + * stack_trace_consume_fn() - Callback for arch_stack_walk()
>   * @cookie:	Caller supplied pointer handed back by arch_stack_walk()
>   * @addr:	The stack entry address to consume
>   *

> @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ unsigned int stack_trace_save_user(unsigned long *store, unsigned int size);
>   */
>  typedef bool (*stack_trace_consume_fn)(void *cookie, unsigned long addr);
>  /**
> - * arch_stack_walk - Architecture specific function to walk the stack
> + * arch_stack_walk() - Architecture specific function to walk the stack
>   * @consume_entry:	Callback which is invoked by the architecture code for
>   *			each entry.
>   * @cookie:		Caller supplied pointer which is handed back to

These two should be separated.