Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 29 Oct 2019 17:34:50 +0100
From:   Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
To:     Miroslav Benes <mbenes@suse.cz>
Cc:     gor@linux.ibm.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, jpoimboe@redhat.com,
        joe.lawrence@redhat.com, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jikos@kernel.org, pmladek@suse.com,
        nstange@suse.de, live-patching@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] s390/livepatch: Implement reliable stack tracing
 for the consistency model
References: <20191029143904.24051-1-mbenes@suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20191029143904.24051-1-mbenes@suse.cz>
Message-Id: <20191029163450.GI5646@osiris>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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.