On Mon, 9 Jan 2017, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 01:50:19PM +0100, Miroslav Benes wrote: > > There is still one thing which I don't understand. Why __schedule() > > (patched or the original) is not on the stack. The actual "sleep" > > should happen in __switch_to_asm() which is C function now. And there is a > > call to __switch_to_asm() in __schedule(). __schedule() thus should be on > > the stack, shouldn't it? What am I missing? __switch_to_asm() pushes %rbp > > on the stack... > > Ah, this is an unwinder bug. get_frame_pointer() needs to be fixed so > that for an inactive task it returns a pointer to inactive_task_frame.bp > rather than the value of inactive_task_frame.bp itself. Will fix it. And it works with the fix. Thanks. Miroslav -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe live-patching" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
