[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 6/7] Fix dump_stack()

To: "Atsushi Nemoto" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] Fix dump_stack()
From: "Franck Bui-Huu" <>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 19:43:39 +0200
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta;; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=LgoUIPHcRAmlIy0wXzoWoi5pKe9EUc86BYShbz2eDS6vn99Yvu1nXU5FgIeoRv0WLpcBT0/x+FuOmF6HeyjVZwpqpocRNhzXZ0HcgEv/cxAhE4hxnYYhrwnf1RX8gv9HRFGBrfA5pAni0Dg/ffYVSde6Qr44iHBBIUDRiwDGslU=
In-reply-to: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <> <>
2006/8/1, Atsushi Nemoto <>:
On Tue, 01 Aug 2006 17:36:38 +0200, Franck Bui-Huu <> 
> > Eliminating the #ifdef itself looks good, but if you cleared contents
> > of the "regs" before prepare_frametrace, you will get less false
> > entries in the output.
> well I don't see why...show_trace() is going to only use regs[29] which
> is setup by prepare_frametrace()...

If CONFIG_KALLSYMS was not set, show_trace() print all possible
entries starting from the sp.  The sp value stored in "regs" by
prepare_frametrace() will be little smaller one than the address of
the "regs" itself.  So if some values like function addresses were in
the "regs", show_trace() will report them.

OK, I'll do that.

BTW what about rename show_trace() into show_raw_backtrace() ?


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>