Message ID | 20201214075615.25038-1-jgross@suse.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | xen: add support for automatic debug key actions in case of crash | expand |
On 14.12.2020 08:56, Juergen Gross wrote: > Patch 2 opens up more potential for simplification: in theory there is > no need any more to call any key handler with the regs parameter, > allowing to use the same prototype for all handlers. The downside would > be to have an additional irq frame on the stack for the dump_registers() > and the do_debug_key() handlers. This isn't the only downside, is it? We'd then also need to be able to (sufficiently cleanly) unwind through the new frame to reach the prior one, in order to avoid logging less reliable information. Plus decompose the prior frame as well to avoid logging less easy to consume data. Jan
On 14.12.20 10:09, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 14.12.2020 08:56, Juergen Gross wrote: >> Patch 2 opens up more potential for simplification: in theory there is >> no need any more to call any key handler with the regs parameter, >> allowing to use the same prototype for all handlers. The downside would >> be to have an additional irq frame on the stack for the dump_registers() >> and the do_debug_key() handlers. > > This isn't the only downside, is it? We'd then also need to be able > to (sufficiently cleanly) unwind through the new frame to reach the > prior one, in order to avoid logging less reliable information. Plus > decompose the prior frame as well to avoid logging less easy to > consume data. Yes, this was implied by the "additional irq frame on the stack". Juergen
On 14.12.2020 10:21, Jürgen Groß wrote: > On 14.12.20 10:09, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 14.12.2020 08:56, Juergen Gross wrote: >>> Patch 2 opens up more potential for simplification: in theory there is >>> no need any more to call any key handler with the regs parameter, >>> allowing to use the same prototype for all handlers. The downside would >>> be to have an additional irq frame on the stack for the dump_registers() >>> and the do_debug_key() handlers. >> >> This isn't the only downside, is it? We'd then also need to be able >> to (sufficiently cleanly) unwind through the new frame to reach the >> prior one, in order to avoid logging less reliable information. Plus >> decompose the prior frame as well to avoid logging less easy to >> consume data. > > Yes, this was implied by the "additional irq frame on the stack". Oh, okay - I read it as just referring to the possible concern of more of the not overly large stack to get used. Jan