On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:35:08PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Ok - but my other observation probably holds, that the bp == 0 special case
> in
> dump_trace() should be changed to a [printk()-ed] warning or so? No user will
> pass
> in bp == 0 legitimately, AFAICS.
Yeah, seems so. I'll verify
* Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Ingo.
>
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 06:08:11PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > void show_stack(struct task_struct *task, unsigned long *sp)
> > > {
> > > - show_stack_log_lvl(task, NULL, sp, 0, "");
> > > + unsigned long bp = 0;
> > > + unsigned long stack;
> > > +
>
Hello, Ingo.
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 06:08:11PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > void show_stack(struct task_struct *task, unsigned long *sp)
> > {
> > - show_stack_log_lvl(task, NULL, sp, 0, "");
> > + unsigned long bp = 0;
> > + unsigned long stack;
> > +
> > + /*
> > +* Stack frames
* Tejun Heo wrote:
> show_stack(current or NULL, NULL) is used to print the backtrace of
> the current task. As trace beyond the function itself isn't of much
> interest to anyone, don't show it by determining sp and bp in
> show_stack()'s frame and passing them to show_stack_log_lvl().
>
> Th
show_stack(current or NULL, NULL) is used to print the backtrace of
the current task. As trace beyond the function itself isn't of much
interest to anyone, don't show it by determining sp and bp in
show_stack()'s frame and passing them to show_stack_log_lvl().
This brings show_stack(NULL, NULL)'s
5 matches
Mail list logo
