On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 11:41:40AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> (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 e
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
>
> #ifde
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-po
Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I coded it, it's not all that bad, the output looks like:
>
> Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.24-rc7 #17
> [] show_trace_log_lvl+0x1a/0x2f
> [] show_trace+0x12/0x14
> [] dump_stack+0x6a/0x70
> [] backtrace_test_timer+0x23/0x25 [backtracete
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:36:57 -0800 (PST)
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >
> > + if (valid_stack_ptr(tinfo, frame, sizeof(*frame)))
> > + while (valid_stack_ptr(tinfo, frame,
> > sizeof(*frame))) {
>
> Why?
>
> Why not j
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 08:36:57 -0800 (PST)
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> >
> > + if (valid_stack_ptr(tinfo, frame, sizeof(*frame)))
> > + while (valid_stack_ptr(tinfo, frame,
> > sizeof(*frame))) {
>
> Why?
>
> Why not j
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> + if (valid_stack_ptr(tinfo, frame, sizeof(*frame)))
> + while (valid_stack_ptr(tinfo, frame, sizeof(*frame))) {
Why?
Why not just make this something like the appended instead?
This is *totally* untested, but the basic notion is
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:46:06 +0100
Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Arjan, I've been doing some work on traps_32.c porting over the
> > oops_begin()/oops_end()/_die() arrangement from traps_64.c and then
> > use it in unifying some more parts of fault.c.
>
> i've got that applied and
* Harvey Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 22:05 -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > Subject: Make the 32 bit Frame Pointer backtracer fall back to traditional
> > From: Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > The 32 bit Fram
* Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Subject: Make the 32 bit Frame Pointer backtracer fall back to traditional
> From: Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> The 32 bit Frame Pointer backtracer code checks if the EBP is valid to
> do a backtrace; howeve
On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 22:05 -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> Subject: Make the 32 bit Frame Pointer backtracer fall back to traditional
> From: Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> The 32 bit Frame Pointer backtracer code checks if the EBP is valid
> to do a backtrace; h
Subject: Make the 32 bit Frame Pointer backtracer fall back to traditional
From: Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The 32 bit Frame Pointer backtracer code checks if the EBP is valid
to do a backtrace; however currently on a failure it just gives up
and prints nothing. That's no
12 matches
Mail list logo
