----- "Mika Westerberg" <ext-mika.1.westerberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Per, > > On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:19:28AM +0200, ext Per Fransson wrote: > > > > This patch is an attempt to get the ball rolling on SMP support for ARM. > > I noticed that this patch is line-wrapped so it doesn't apply cleanly (or is it > our brilliant exchange server which mangled that). > > Few questions, see below. ... [ cut ] ... > > > @@ -996,20 +1028,20 @@ arm_get_dumpfile_stack_frame(struct bt_info *bt, ulong *nip, ulong *ksp) > > if (!ms->crash_task_regs) > > return FALSE; > > > > - if (tt->panic_task != bt->task || bt->tc->pid != ms->crash_task_pid) > > - return FALSE; > > - > > Was there a reason to remove the check above? Is it so that when we have SMP > machine, there is still only one panic'ing task? Yes, there is still only one panic task. > Anyway, if this this check is not needed anymore, I guess you can remove the > whole variable from machspec structure. Right -- in fact, in the patched arm_get_crash_notes() function, ms->crash_task_pid gets set to whatever pid was running on the highest cpu -- whether it was the panic task or not. But like you say, with the patch, it's become irrelevant anyway. Dave -- Crash-utility mailing list Crash-utility@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
