From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932202AbaKMHtf (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Nov 2014 02:49:35 -0500 Received: from mail.emea.novell.com ([130.57.118.101]:41185 "EHLO mail.emea.novell.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753762AbaKMHte convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Nov 2014 02:49:34 -0500 Message-Id: <5464709C0200007800047118@mail.emea.novell.com> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 14.0.1 Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 07:49:32 +0000 From: "Jan Beulich" To: "Linus Torvalds" Cc: "Ingo Molnar" , "Ingo Molnar" , "Thomas Gleixner" , "Tony Jones" , "Linux Kernel Mailing List" , "Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC] x86: also CFI-annotate certain inline asm()s References: <5458A9600200007800044AE5@mail.emea.novell.com> <20141110100117.GA15841@gmail.com> <5461CC0702000078000464B3@mail.emea.novell.com> In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>> On 12.11.14 at 21:36, wrote: > On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:42 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >> Nothing crashes with the unwind information being wrong. It is >> solely you who was claiming (without proof) years ago that the >> unwinder repeatedly caused issues. > > Umm. We had oopses showing it. Several times. And I know you've been saying so before. The only problem here is - these weren't sent my way for investigation, at least as far as I recall. >> Yes, we did find a bug or two over the years in it > > .. and you and Andi repeatedly refused to make the code more robust > when I asked. True, we considered _some_ of the requests you made wrong. > Which is why I don't work with Andi or you directly any more, People thinking differently than you in certain aspects shouldn't preclude working with them directly, should it? Yes, it's a project you started, but it has long become a community one, and as such excluding people just because they don't conform to every opinion of yours is, well, odd. > But this patch I NAK'ed because the code is not readable, and the > infrastructure is not bearable. > > Live with it. I got the message. Jan