----- "Michael Holzheu" <holzheu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> On Mon, 2010-04-26 at 11:56 -0400, Dave Anderson wrote:
> > Sorry -- I take it back. Running a test shows that it breaks "bt -a"
> > on Xen dumpfiles where the cpus are marked offline prior to dumping
> > the kernel memory.
> >
> > I think this should be moved to the processor-specific backtrace functions,
> > which can just display "OFFLINE" or something to that effect.
>
> Ok, fine. What about the following...
That's good -- queued for the next release.
Thanks,
Dave
> ---
> s390.c | 5 +++++
> s390x.c | 5 +++++
> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+)
>
> --- a/s390.c
> +++ b/s390.c
> @@ -603,11 +603,16 @@ s390_back_trace_cmd(struct bt_info *bt)
> unsigned long async_start = 0, async_end = 0;
> unsigned long panic_start = 0, panic_end = 0;
> unsigned long stack_end, stack_start, stack_base;
> + int cpu = bt->tc->processor;
>
> if (bt->hp && bt->hp->eip) {
> error(WARNING,
> "instruction pointer argument ignored on this architecture!\n");
> }
> + if (is_task_active(bt->task) && (!(kt->cpu_flags[cpu] & ONLINE))) {
> + fprintf(fp, " CPU offline\n");
> + return;
> + }
> ksp = bt->stkptr;
>
> /* print lowcore and get async stack when task has cpu */
> --- a/s390x.c
> +++ b/s390x.c
> @@ -836,11 +836,16 @@ s390x_back_trace_cmd(struct bt_info *bt)
> unsigned long panic_start = 0, panic_end = 0;
> unsigned long stack_end, stack_start, stack_base;
> unsigned long r14;
> + int cpu = bt->tc->processor;
>
> if (bt->hp && bt->hp->eip) {
> error(WARNING,
> "instruction pointer argument ignored on this
> architecture!\n");
> }
> + if (is_task_active(bt->task) && (!(kt->cpu_flags[cpu] & ONLINE))) {
> + fprintf(fp, " CPU offline\n");
> + return;
> + }
> ksp = bt->stkptr;
>
> /* print lowcore and get async stack when task has cpu */
--
Crash-utility mailing list
Crash-utility@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
