[lkml]   [2006]   [May]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86 NUMA panic compile error
    Ingo Molnar <> wrote:
    > Nevertheless for hard-to-debug bugs i prefer if they can be reproduced
    > and debugged on 32-bit too, because x86_64 debugging is still quite a
    > PITA and wastes alot of time: for example it has no support for exact
    > kernel stacktraces. Also, the printout of the backtrace is butt-ugly and
    > as un-ergonomic to the human eye as it gets

    Yes, I find x86_64 traces significantly harder to follow. And I miss the
    display of the length of the functions (do_md_run+1208 instead of
    do_md_run+1208/2043). The latter form makes it easier to work out
    whereabouts in the function things happened.

    That, plus the mix of hex and decimal numbers..

    > who came up with that
    > "two-maybe-one function entries per-line" nonsense? [Whoever did it he
    > never had to look at (and make sense of) hundreds of stacktraces in a
    > row.]

    Plus they're wide enough to get usefully wordwrapped when someone mails
    them to you.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-05-15 21:39    [W:0.020 / U:12.088 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site