On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 6:17 AM, Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> wrote: > > * Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: > >> > and meanwhile you can keep a revert of this patch ported to SUSE kernels in >> > whatever fashion you prefer. >> >> Funny suggestion - I don't think that's reasonable for us to do. Or if we >> were >> to, we could as well invest in doing the re-work you're asking for; I don't >> think anyone will have the time to do either. > > That's fair enough: if there's not enough resources to keep a feature > maintainable > upstream then it should not be upstream in that form. > > This isn't just some driver we can let bit-rot in peace until it finds a > maintainer (or not), without affecting anyone but users of that driver. > > This is hundreds of usage sites of ugly code intermixed with critical pieces > of > assembly code that negatively affects the hackability of everything. > > Also, with the feature missing completely, maybe someone finds a method to > introduce it in a maintainable fashion, while with the feature included > upstream > there's very little pressure to do that. As a bonus we'd also win a workable > dwarf > unwinder.
Before doing something drastic like this, I think we should get Josh's opinion, since I think he's working on a new (?) unwinder. FWIW, musl is considering some kind of automatic annotation scheme: http://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2015/05/13/5 --Andy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
