On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:41:40 -0800 (PST) Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 10 Jan 2008, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > > What do you think of this approach instead of your proposal? > > Looks ok to me. I get the feeling that we *should* be able to make the > > #ifdef CONFIG_FRAME_POINTER > .. > > thing be a bit cleaner with this (since you have the > non-frame-pointer thing inside the loop as well), and use one common > routine for it all, with just certain helper functions always > retuning a NULL or something for the non-frame-pointer thing. ok I'll try that; I'm also trying some other cleanups (right now we pick "ebp" and the stack pointer at different levels in the call chain, so it gets a tad messy) > > (I also wonder if we should limit the number of entries we print out. > Sometimes the stack frame ends up being so deep that we lose the > *important* stuff. I think it might be good idea to have some rule > like "the first 5 entries go to the screen, the rest will be > KERN_DEBUG and only go to the logs by default" - so a "dmesg" would > show it all, but if the machine is hung, the screen won't have been > scrolled away from all the other things by a long backtrace!) that's... a ton more tricky, and realistically needs the patch to make show_stack take a level argument in the first place. (I have that done, it's just touching like 125+ files, so I shelved it as "probably not important enough"); -- If you want to reach me at my work email, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org -- 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/
