On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 03:45:59PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > stack_trace_save_tsk() *shouldn't* skip anything unless we've explicitly > > told it to via skipnr, because I'd expect that > > It's what most archs happen to do today and is what > stack_trace_save_tsk() as implemented using arch_stack_walk() does. > Which is I think the closest to canonical we have. It *is* confusing though. Even if 'nosched' may be the normally desired behavior, stack_trace_save_tsk() should probably be named stack_trace_save_tsk_nosched(). -- Josh
