On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 12:21:11 +0200, Franck Bui-Huu <vagabon.xyz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > does something like this on top of this patch make you feel better ? > > -- >8 -- > > diff --git a/arch/mips/kernel/process.c b/arch/mips/kernel/process.c > index 4ceddfa..8a9db45 100644 > --- a/arch/mips/kernel/process.c > +++ b/arch/mips/kernel/process.c > @@ -480,7 +480,13 @@ unsigned long unwind_stack(struct task_s > return 0; > > if (leaf) > - pc = regs->regs[31]; > + /* > + * For some extreme cases, get_frame_info() can > + * consider wrongly a nested function as a leaf > + * one. In that cases avoid to return always the > + * same value. > + */ > + pc = pc != regs->regs[31] ? regs->regs[31] : 0; Yes, it should be safe. But still I'm not sure unwind_stack() should take "regs" as its argument... --- Atsushi Nemoto
