Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 21 Apr 2004 16:50:59 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: stack dumps, CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER and i386 (was Re: sysrq shows impossible call stack) |
| |
Adam Litke <agl@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 2004-04-20 at 18:41, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote: > > > > > > Roland Dreier <roland@topspin.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Adam> This problem was annoying me a few months ago so I coded up > > > > Adam> a stack trace patch that actually uses the frame pointer. > > > > Adam> It is currently maintained in -mjb but I have pasted below. > > > > Adam> Hope this helps. > > > > > > > > Thanks, that looks really useful. What is the chance of this moving > > > > from -mjb to mainline? > > > > > > Good, but it needs to be updated to do the right thing with 4k stacks when > > > called from interrupt context. > > The show_trace() for the CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER case will now be called > the same way as the existing code.
I still don't see any code in there to handle the transition from the interrupt stack page to the non-interrupt stack page in the 4k-stacks case?
> This brings up a question though. > It doesn't appear to me that anyone is actually calling > show_trace_task() yet. Am I missing something or should we change all > the callers of show_trace() to use show_trace_task()?
You're right - we've killed off all of its callers. Neat. I shall administer the coup de grace.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |