On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 09:39:18PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > > > Because that's really the issue: do you want a "pretty" backtrace, or do > > > you want one that is rock solid but has some crud in it. > > > > I just want an as exact backtrace as possible. I also think > > that we can make the unwinder robust enough. > > Any reason you can't put the exact back trace in "[xxx]" and the ones we > see on the stack which dont look like call trace as ?xxx? It makes the > code a bit trickier but we depend on the quality of traces Linus is worried about the unwinder crashing -- that wouldn't help with that. What the (now out of tree) unwinder does is to check if it finishes the trace and if not fall back to the old unwinder. -Andi _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
