Re: [PATCH, RFC] x86: also CFI-annotate certain inline asm()s

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>]

>>> On 12.11.14 at 21:36, <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:42 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>
>> Nothing crashes with the unwind information being wrong. It is
>> solely you who was claiming (without proof) years ago that the
>> unwinder repeatedly caused issues.
> 
> Umm. We had oopses showing it. Several times.

And I know you've been saying so before. The only problem here is
- these weren't sent my way for investigation, at least as far as I
recall.

>> Yes, we did find a bug or two over the years in it
> 
> .. and you and Andi repeatedly refused to make the code more robust
> when I asked.

True, we considered _some_ of the requests you made wrong.

> Which is why I don't work with Andi or you directly any more,

People thinking differently than you in certain aspects shouldn't
preclude working with them directly, should it? Yes, it's a project you
started, but it has long become a community one, and as such
excluding people just because they don't conform to every opinion
of yours is, well, odd.

> But this patch I NAK'ed because the code is not readable, and the
> infrastructure is not bearable.
> 
> Live with it.

I got the message.

Jan