On Tue, 18 Nov 2025 18:04:27 +0100 Jens Remus <[email protected]> wrote:
> I wonder whether the series should be restructured as follows: > > unwind_user/sframe: Store .sframe section data in per-mm maple tree > unwind_user/sframe: Detect .sframe sections in executables > unwind_user/sframe: Add support for reading .sframe headers > unwind_user/sframe: Add support for reading .sframe contents > unwind_user/sframe: Wire up unwind_user to sframe > x86/uaccess: Add unsafe_copy_from_user() implementation > unwind_user/sframe/x86: Enable sframe unwinding on x86 > unwind_user: Stop when reaching an outermost frame > unwind_user/sframe: Add support for outermost frame indication > unwind_user/sframe: Remove .sframe section on detected corruption > unwind_user/sframe: Show file name in debug output > unwind_user/sframe: Add .sframe validation option > unwind_user/sframe: Add prctl() interface for registering .sframe sections > > While moving sframe_add_section() and sframe_remove_section() from > "unwind_user/sframe: Add support for reading .sframe headers" to > "unwind_user/sframe: Store .sframe section data in per-mm maple tree" or > into a new second patch, as they depend on the first and are required > by the third. > > What are your thoughts? The reordering might be wasted effort. If you feel it makes it better, sure, go ahead and do it. -- Steve
