[PATCH] x86: Don't pretend that non-framepointer stack traces are reliable

[PATCH] x86: Don't pretend that non-framepointer stack traces are reliable

[Arjan van de Ven]

>From f460ce92e09770691855b98a904556e92d39ead9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 12:20:20 -0800
Subject: [PATCH] x86: Don't pretend that non-framepointer stack traces are reliable

without frame pointers enabled, the x86 stack traces should not
pretend to be reliable; instead they should just be what they are:
unreliable.

The effect of this is that they have a ? printed in the stacktrace,
to warn the reader that these entries are guesses rather than known
based on more reliable information.

Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
---
 arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c b/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c
index 077c9ea..4eda941 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c
@@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ print_context_stack(struct thread_info *tinfo,
 				frame = frame->next_frame;
 				bp = (unsigned long) frame;
 			} else {
-				ops->address(data, addr, bp == 0);
+				ops->address(data, addr, 0);
 			}
 			print_ftrace_graph_addr(addr, data, ops, tinfo, graph);
 		}
-- 
1.6.0.6



-- 
Arjan van de Ven 	Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings, 
visit http://www.lesswatts.org

Re: [PATCH] x86: Don't pretend that non-framepointer stack traces are reliable

[Ingo Molnar]

* Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> wrote:

> >From f460ce92e09770691855b98a904556e92d39ead9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
> Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 12:20:20 -0800
> Subject: [PATCH] x86: Don't pretend that non-framepointer stack traces are reliable
> 
> without frame pointers enabled, the x86 stack traces should not
> pretend to be reliable; instead they should just be what they are:
> unreliable.
> 
> The effect of this is that they have a ? printed in the stacktrace,
> to warn the reader that these entries are guesses rather than known
> based on more reliable information.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c |    2 +-
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

applied to tip/x86/debug, thanks Arjan!

	Ingo