* Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello, Ingo.
>
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 06:08:11PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > void show_stack(struct task_struct *task, unsigned long *sp)
> > > {
> > > - show_stack_log_lvl(task, NULL, sp, 0, "");
> > > + unsigned long bp = 0;
> > > + unsigned long stack;
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * Stack frames below this one aren't interesting. Don't show them
> > > + * if we're printing for %current.
> > > + */
> > > + if (!sp && (!task || task == current)) {
> > > + sp = &stack;
> > > + bp = stack_frame(current, NULL);
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + show_stack_log_lvl(task, NULL, sp, bp, "");
> >
> > Hm, show_regs() has a similar problem AFAICS.
>
> Doesn't seem so. show_regs() have pt_regs which gets passed to
> dump_trace() and then used to determine the frame being dumped.
> e.g. BUG() takes pt_regs from the faulting frame and thus doesn't show
> anything beyond it.
Ok - but my other observation probably holds, that the bp == 0 special case in
dump_trace() should be changed to a [printk()-ed] warning or so? No user will pass
in bp == 0 legitimately, AFAICS.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
