Re: [PATCH v4 00/57] x86/dumpstack: rewrite x86 stack dump code

2016-08-18 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > You're right, that would be better. My apologies for spamming. It > started with "only" 19 patches in v1 and then quickly got out of hand. np! > I may split it up something like this: > > cleanups: > function graph fixes: > get_stack_info(): > unwinder prep: > unwi

Re: [PATCH v4 00/57] x86/dumpstack: rewrite x86 stack dump code

2016-08-18 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 09:31:36 -0500 Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 03:39:35PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > > > > Josh Poimboeuf (57): > > > > > > I am personally unable to review a 57 patches series. > > > > > > Any chance you could

Re: [PATCH v4 00/57] x86/dumpstack: rewrite x86 stack dump code

2016-08-18 Thread Steven Rostedt
On Thu, 18 Aug 2016 15:39:35 +0200 Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > > Josh Poimboeuf (57): > > > > I am personally unable to review a 57 patches series. > > > > Any chance you could split it into self-contained steps? In general doing > > so > > increase the chances

Re: [PATCH v4 00/57] x86/dumpstack: rewrite x86 stack dump code

2016-08-18 Thread Josh Poimboeuf
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 03:39:35PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > > Josh Poimboeuf (57): > > > > I am personally unable to review a 57 patches series. > > > > Any chance you could split it into self-contained steps? In general doing > > so > > increase the c

Re: [PATCH v4 00/57] x86/dumpstack: rewrite x86 stack dump code

2016-08-18 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > Josh Poimboeuf (57): > > I am personally unable to review a 57 patches series. > > Any chance you could split it into self-contained steps? In general doing so > increase the chances for reviews, accelerate merging, improve maintainance... Yes, please! Serie

Re: [PATCH v4 00/57] x86/dumpstack: rewrite x86 stack dump code

2016-08-18 Thread Frederic Weisbecker
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 08:05:40AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > The x86 stack dump code is a bit of a mess. dump_trace() uses > callbacks, and each user of it seems to have slightly different > requirements, so there are several slightly different callbacks floating > around. > > Also there

[PATCH v4 00/57] x86/dumpstack: rewrite x86 stack dump code

2016-08-18 Thread Josh Poimboeuf
Mostly minor changes this time. See below for the full list of changes. A git branch is available at: https://github.com/jpoimboe/linux unwind-v4 Based on tip/master. v4: - complete rewrite of arch_within_stack_frames() for hardened usercopy - handle empty stacks better: - change in_*_st