From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14ABAC4707C for ; Fri, 21 May 2021 17:53:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA949613C8 for ; Fri, 21 May 2021 17:53:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235427AbhEURys (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 May 2021 13:54:48 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:53474 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S234912AbhEURyq (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 May 2021 13:54:46 -0400 Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B65DC608FE; Fri, 21 May 2021 17:53:21 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1621619602; bh=d4iEeT3kENazUfx6vj5fy6JPv4wS8jBR0cwrDXv+FYk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=WggyX5pUYy1jsxw7nVsbfw7cZlt5OajIOd+gRsgSNRX/LokMp+maZhTvwQwBfeV7C PrLpRO5zbAKj2sbs1rrzeRg17b/qWLI6ak/nDhp4nl1eA298HJ8gFcK6HTYyZq/iAB qPnNHk5Lt8r4l/uixt4RgjfzdLcw8evif1M8UNUlThuoFukpWcARi5SqmXCAXG6ld4 7jL9irJQw33Tt9bf2a5RnL4gmH+3/gyHRCAfdDrD3BTeuCKX5kFK/Fv/bHSJaRFFkW ZQSEgLs3wowyzkveJNAQmsku6Llw6+fCSEuABO0yZ6z0Cc12VGB1cDToc6p/fCcqNR rSDHF/Rs8r0OQ== Date: Fri, 21 May 2021 18:53:18 +0100 From: Mark Brown To: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, jpoimboe@redhat.com, ardb@kernel.org, jthierry@redhat.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, jmorris@namei.org, pasha.tatashin@soleen.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 1/2] arm64: Introduce stack trace reliability checks in the unwinder Message-ID: <20210521175318.GF5825@sirena.org.uk> References: <68eeda61b3e9579d65698a884b26c8632025e503> <20210516040018.128105-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com> <20210516040018.128105-2-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com> <20210521161117.GB5825@sirena.org.uk> <20210521174242.GD5825@sirena.org.uk> <26c33633-029e-6374-16e6-e9418099da95@linux.microsoft.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="1Ow488MNN9B9o/ov" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <26c33633-029e-6374-16e6-e9418099da95@linux.microsoft.com> X-Cookie: Do not write below this line. User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --1Ow488MNN9B9o/ov Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 12:47:13PM -0500, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote: > On 5/21/21 12:42 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > > Like I say we may come up with some use for the flag in error cases in > > future so I'm not opposed to keeping the accounting there. > So, should I leave it the way it is now? Or should I not set reliable = false > for errors? Which one do you prefer? > Josh, > Are you OK with not flagging reliable = false for errors in unwind_frame()? I think it's fine to leave it as it is. --1Ow488MNN9B9o/ov Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAmCn840ACgkQJNaLcl1U h9B64Af+PKOojLf3mxi8xJnWbYRZtZbrmPoHiSiT/enzT0Y/XjSubDQOp0pxbeJT ah0rvSPhTYWO7uUm2SmBcaWUN0eidHRotNWCvPadRISC6JwLGcS3qmAnTdZ8JNXE 4NT3oyLC8yAFI6vv5NXf9SwFW+puPPWS7quktVWiJ5Xb12vd+5x+n5lPcrMinImi 5sWIcINkCXrthJTudokrCtuaNLp0aDQVTwQTmLBQ7q2fjAxfiylvxi6J556/YUFQ UvtgW9zT7JjhFuEoeiO3/QekwUijHzelN0inaw0kX8rtaD3FrPqSI8JYaBXDEC4u /zkIcbJJEvSDyZG8v/yUD+CeN+9CwA== =yZ+q -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --1Ow488MNN9B9o/ov--