lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Apr]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:02    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans