Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Sat, 7 Feb 2009 12:23:37 -0800 | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | 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
| |