Jiayuan Chen <mrpre@xxxxxxx> writes: > The dumpstack.c file has undergone many modifications, and the > print_context_stack() function was removed or rewritten a long time ago, > so it's better to remove the incorrect guidance. Additionally, no new > functions will be added to the documentation, as it may be modified again > in the future. Using 'question mark' and 'dumpstack' is sufficient to > index this document. > > Signed-off-by: Jiayuan Chen <mrpre@xxxxxxx> > --- > Documentation/arch/x86/kernel-stacks.rst | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/arch/x86/kernel-stacks.rst b/Documentation/arch/x86/kernel-stacks.rst > index 738671a4070b..2d355e78008e 100644 > --- a/Documentation/arch/x86/kernel-stacks.rst > +++ b/Documentation/arch/x86/kernel-stacks.rst > @@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ Printing backtraces on x86 > > The question about the '?' preceding function names in an x86 stacktrace > keeps popping up, here's an indepth explanation. It helps if the reader > -stares at print_context_stack() and the whole machinery in and around > +stares at 'question mark' and the whole machinery in and around > arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c. Maybe - probably - I'm missing something, but I don't see how this is going to help our readers? If there *is* a function that will, by virtue of being stared at, help bring enlightenment, why wouldn't we name it? Thanks, jon