On 01/10/2008 01:54 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> +++ linux-2.6.24-rc7/arch/x86/kernel/traps_32.c >> @@ -124,7 +124,8 @@ static inline unsigned long print_contex >> unsigned long addr; >> >> addr = frame->return_address; >> - ops->address(data, addr); >> + if (__kernel_text_address(addr)) >> + ops->address(data, addr); >> /* >> * break out of recursive entries (such as >> * end_of_stack_stop_unwind_function). Also, >> @@ -132,6 +133,7 @@ static inline unsigned long print_contex >> * move downwards! >> */ >> next = frame->next_frame; >> + ebp = (unsigned long) next; >> if (next <= frame) > > thanks, applied. Nice catch! > >> This patch is simple; I don't know if it's .24 candidate; the bug is >> pretty bad but not a recent regression, and there is obviously some >> risk with touching this code. > > it's a 2.6.24.1 candidate i believe. We trigger plenty of various > crashes during x86.git maintenance and others hit various crashes in > -mm, so by the time .1 is released we'll have it in .25 and can backport > it. Most folks/distros will update to 2.6.24.1 very quickly so there's > no risk of months loss of quality to kerneloops.org data either. >
Using the same logic, why not put it in 2.6.24 and then remove it in 2.6.24.1 if it's broken? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
