On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 10:10:30 -0400 Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com> wrote:
> Indeed it's only kernel internal API, but this is API that will be > expected by each architecture supporting unwind_user. Changing > this later on will cause a lot of friction and cross-architecture churn > compared to doing it right in the first place. The changes you are suggesting is added info if an architecture needs it. That is easy to do. All you need is to add an extra field in the state structure and the architectures that need it can use it, and the rest can ignore it. Again, I'm not worried about it. If you want to send me a patch, feel free, but I'm not doing this extra work, until I see a real problem. -- Steve.
