Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-128025-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
From: =?utf-8?B?QmrDtnJuIFTDtnBlbA==?= <bjorn@kernel.org>
To: Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@gmail.com>, Paul Walmsley
 <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>, Albert Ou
 <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, =?utf-8?B?QmrDtnJuIFTDtnBlbA==?=
 <bjorn@rivosinc.com>
Cc: puranjay12@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] riscv: ftrace: make stack walk more robust.
In-Reply-To: <20240328184020.34278-1-puranjay12@gmail.com>
References: <20240328184020.34278-1-puranjay12@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2024 15:18:48 +0200
Message-ID: <8734s3sy13.fsf@all.your.base.are.belong.to.us>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Puranjay Mohan <puranjay12@gmail.com> writes:

> The current stack walker in riscv implemented in walk_stackframe() provid=
es
> the PC to a callback function when it unwinds the stacks. This doesn't
> allow implementing stack walkers that need access to more information like
> the frame pointer, etc.
>
> This series makes walk_stackframe() provide a unwinde_state structure to
> callback functions. This structure has all the information that
> walk_stackframe() can provide.
>
> Currently, there are four users of walk_stackframe(): return_address(),
> perf_callchain_kernel(), dump_backtrace(), and __get_wchan(). All of these
> have been converted to use arch_stack_walk() rather than calling
> walk_stackframe() directly.
>
> We need this to implement arch_bpf_stack_walk() that provides a callback
> that needs the FP, SP, and PC. This will be needed for implementing BFP
> exceptions for RISCV.

Hmm, I wonder if it's easier to have these two patches as part of the
BPF exception series, instead of having the dependencies be cross-tree?

> There are no functional changes in this series.
>
> I have tested this by crashing the kernel and looking at the stack trace
> with and without CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER

I have two really minor style nits, but regardless if they're fixed or
not:

Reviewed-by: Bj=C3=B6rn T=C3=B6pel <bjorn@rivosinc.com>