On 8/26/21 10:46 AM, Mark Brown wrote:

On Thu, Aug 12, 2021 at 02:06:01PM -0500, madvenka@linux.microsoft.com wrote:

quoted

Renaming of unwinder functions
==============================

quoted

Rename unwinder functions to unwind_*() similar to other architectures
for naming consistency. More on this below.

This feels like it could probably do with splitting up a bit for
reviewability, several of these headers you've got in the commit
logs look like they could be separate commits.  Splitting things
up does help with reviewability, having only one change to keep
in mind at once is a lot less cognative load.

quoted

Replace walk_stackframe() with unwind()
=======================================

walk_stackframe() contains the unwinder loop that walks the stack
frames. Currently, start_backtrace() and walk_stackframe() are called
separately. They should be combined in the same function. Also, the
loop in walk_stackframe() should be simplified and should look like
the unwind loops in other architectures such as X86 and S390.

This definitely seems like a separate change.

OK. I will take a look at splitting the patch.

I am also requesting a review of the sym_code special section approach.
I know that you have already approved it. I wanted one more vote. Then,
I can remove the "RFC" word from the title and then it will be just a
code review of the patch series.

Mark Rutland,

Do you also approve the idea of placing unreliable functions (from an unwind
perspective) in a special section and using that in the unwinder for
reliable stack trace?

Thanks.

Madhavan