Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 8 Apr 2022 15:44:34 +0100
From:   Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To:     "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
Cc:     broonie@kernel.org, jpoimboe@redhat.com, ardb@kernel.org,
        nobuta.keiya@fujitsu.com, sjitindarsingh@gmail.com,
        catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, jmorris@namei.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        live-patching@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 06/11] arm64: Use stack_trace_consume_fn and rename
 args to unwind()
Message-ID: <YlBKUtLN5+wpuyLi@lakrids>
References: <95691cae4f4504f33d0fc9075541b1e7deefe96f>
 <20220117145608.6781-1-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
 <20220117145608.6781-7-madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
 <YgutJKqYe8ss8LLd@FVFF77S0Q05N>
 <845e4589-97d9-5371-3a0e-f6e05919f32d@linux.microsoft.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <845e4589-97d9-5371-3a0e-f6e05919f32d@linux.microsoft.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 10:51:38AM -0600, Madhavan T. Venkataraman wrote:
> Hey Mark Rutland, Mark Brown,
> 
> Could you please review the rest of the patches in the series when you can?

Sorry, I was expecting a new version with some of my comments
addressed, in case that had effects on subsequent patches.

> Also, many of the patches have received a Reviewed-By from you both.
> So, after I send the next version out, can we upstream those ones?

I would very much like to upstream the ones I have given a Reviewed-by.

Given those were conditional on some adjustments (e.g. actually filling
out comments), do you mind if I pick those into a series now?

Then, once that's picked, you can rebase the rest atop, and we can
review that.

Thanks,
Mark.

> On 2/15/22 07:39, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 08:56:03AM -0600, madvenka@linux.microsoft.com wrote:
> >> From: "Madhavan T. Venkataraman" <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
> >>
> >> Rename the arguments to unwind() for better consistency. Also, use the
> >> typedef stack_trace_consume_fn for the consume_entry function as it is
> >> already defined in linux/stacktrace.h.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Madhavan T. Venkataraman <madvenka@linux.microsoft.com>
> > 
> > How about: 
> > 
> > | arm64: align with common stracktrace naming
> > |
> > | For historical reasons, the naming of parameters and their types in the arm64
> > | stacktrace code differs from that used in generic code and other
> > | architectures, even though the types are equivalent.
> > |
> > | For consistency and clarity, use the generic names.
> > 
> > Either way:
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> > 
> > Mark.
> > 
> >> ---
> >>  arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c | 4 ++--
> >>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> >> index 1b32e55735aa..f772dac78b11 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/stacktrace.c
> >> @@ -181,12 +181,12 @@ static int notrace unwind_next(struct unwind_state *state)
> >>  NOKPROBE_SYMBOL(unwind_next);
> >>  
> >>  static void notrace unwind(struct unwind_state *state,
> >> -			   bool (*fn)(void *, unsigned long), void *data)
> >> +			   stack_trace_consume_fn consume_entry, void *cookie)
> >>  {
> >>  	while (1) {
> >>  		int ret;
> >>  
> >> -		if (!fn(data, state->pc))
> >> +		if (!consume_entry(cookie, state->pc))
> >>  			break;
> >>  		ret = unwind_next(state);
> >>  		if (ret < 0)
> >> -- 
> >> 2.25.1
> >>