----- Original Message -----
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > On 04/25, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > - if (ACTIVE() && !INSTACK(esp, bt)) {
> > > + if (LOCAL_ACTIVE() && !INSTACK(esp, bt)) {
> >
> > Of course, this is wrong, please see v2 below.
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Subject: [PATCH v2 03/10] back_trace: don't check /proc if !LOCAL_ACTIVE()
> >
> > Obviously the /proc/$tc->pid check can only make sense if LOCAL_ACTIVE().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > kernel.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel.c b/kernel.c
> > index a6fa7a6..cf0a6a0 100644
> > --- a/kernel.c
> > +++ b/kernel.c
> > @@ -2902,7 +2902,7 @@ back_trace(struct bt_info *bt)
> >
> > if (ACTIVE() && !INSTACK(esp, bt)) {
> > sprintf(buf, "/proc/%ld", bt->tc->pid);
> > - if (!file_exists(buf, NULL))
> > + if (!(LOCAL_ACTIVE() && file_exists(buf, NULL)))
> > error(INFO, "task no longer exists\n");
> > else
> > error(INFO,
> > --
> > 2.5.0
>
> This doesn't make sense to me. If it's !LOCAL_ACTIVE() (i.e.
> hybrid-live-dump), then
> why would you want to call file_exists()?
>
> Shouldn't it be: LOCAL_ACTIVE() and !file_exists()
>
> Dave
Never mind -- I was missing the () around the two items...
Dave
--
Crash-utility mailing list
Crash-utility@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
