Thanks a million! I truly appreciate your review!
On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 12:57 AM Jonathan Corbet <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, 5 Dec 2020 13:01:36 +0800 > Mingzhe Yang <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Prior to kernel 4.9 the thread_info structure was at the bottom of > > the kernel stack. kernel 4.9 moved it into the task_struct. > > > > See commits c65eacb ("sched/core: Allow putting thread_info into > > task_struct"), 15f4eae ("x86: Move thread_info into task_struct") > > and 883d50f ("scripts/gdb: fix get_thread_info"). > > > > Signed-off-by: Mingzhe Yang <[email protected]> > > --- > > Documentation/x86/kernel-stacks.rst | 3 ++- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/x86/kernel-stacks.rst > > b/Documentation/x86/kernel-stacks.rst > > index 6b0bcf0..e9097f3 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/x86/kernel-stacks.rst > > +++ b/Documentation/x86/kernel-stacks.rst > > @@ -15,7 +15,8 @@ Like all other architectures, x86_64 has a kernel stack > > for every > > active thread. These thread stacks are THREAD_SIZE (2*PAGE_SIZE) big. > > These stacks contain useful data as long as a thread is alive or a > > zombie. While the thread is in user space the kernel stack is empty > > -except for the thread_info structure at the bottom. > > +except for the thread_info structure at the bottom (since kernel 4.9, > > +the thread_info structure has been moved into task_struct). > > So this has been sitting in my inbox for a bit, sorry. This seems worth > fixing, but is this the correct fix? The documentation should reflect the > current kernel, rather than what once was with a "(it's not actually that > way anymore)" note. Is the kernel stack truly empty now? If so we should > just say that; otherwise say what's lurking there in current kernels. > > Thanks, > > jon
