Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 11:56:34 -0800
From: "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>, Adam Litke <agl@us.ibm.com>
cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [RFC] Smarter stack traces using the frame pointer
Message-ID: <119200000.1068062194@flay>
In-Reply-To: <20031105132138.59326dd4.sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
References: <1067984031.544.23.camel@agtpad> <20031105132138.59326dd4.sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 991
Lines: 24

>> I was working on this for the mjb tree but I thought I'd throw it out
>> here in case anyone else finds it interesting.  This simple change to
>> the stack trace code uses the frame pointer to do the trace instead of
>> assuming any kernel address on the stack is a return address.  It makes
>> for much more readable stack traces.
> 
> I was asked by a colleague to do the same thing and came up with this
> alternative version which, I think, gets it mostly right - I am not
> sure about the stack trace from an OOPS.
> 
> Don't bother to tell me this is a bit of a hack - I know :-)
> 
> Patch relative to 2.6.0-test9.

What's the difference between the two patches, apart from the size?
Better error handling / functionality somehow? 

M.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/