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:   Sat, 29 Apr 2023 12:08:27 +0200
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To:     Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@kernel.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Vernon Lovejoy <vlovejoy@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/show_trace_log_lvl: ensure stack pointer is aligned,
 again
Message-ID: <20230429100826.GA9879@redhat.com>
References: <20230427140054.GA17800@redhat.com>
 <20230428043158.r5omehiaqawcac2y@treble>
 <20230428065513.GA22111@redhat.com>
 <20230428235747.b5smutdttv5eeopi@treble>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230428235747.b5smutdttv5eeopi@treble>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk

On 04/28, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 08:55:13AM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > We decided to make the simplest one-liner fix, but I was thinking about
> >
> > 	for ( stack = stack ?: get_stack_pointer(task, regs);
> > 	     (stack = PTR_ALIGN(stack, sizeof(long)));
> > 	      stack = stack_info.next_sp)
> > 	{
> > 		...
> >
> > to factout out the annoying PTR_ALIGN(). Will it work for you?
>
> I'd rather not, that's a little *too* clever, IMO.

To me

	for (stack = PTR_ALIGN(stack ?: get_stack_pointer(task, regs), sizeof(long));
	     stack;
	     stack = PTR_ALIGN(stack_info.next_sp, sizeof(long)))

certainly looks less readable (and more "clever" ;) but I won't argue with
maintainer. Please see V2.

Oleg.