lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Feb]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
Subject[PATCH] x86: Don't pretend that non-framepointer stack traces are reliable
From f460ce92e09770691855b98a904556e92d39ead9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 12:20:20 -0800
Subject: [PATCH] x86: Don't pretend that non-framepointer stack traces are reliable

without frame pointers enabled, the x86 stack traces should not
pretend to be reliable; instead they should just be what they are:
unreliable.

The effect of this is that they have a ? printed in the stacktrace,
to warn the reader that these entries are guesses rather than known
based on more reliable information.

Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
---
arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c b/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c
index 077c9ea..4eda941 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c
@@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ print_context_stack(struct thread_info *tinfo,
frame = frame->next_frame;
bp = (unsigned long) frame;
} else {
- ops->address(data, addr, bp == 0);
+ ops->address(data, addr, 0);
}
print_ftrace_graph_addr(addr, data, ops, tinfo, graph);
}
--
1.6.0.6


--
Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-02-07 21:25    [W:0.082 / U:0.792 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site