Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 6 Aug 2000 07:00:42 +0200 (CEST) | From | Mike Galbraith <> | Subject | Re: test6-pre2 loop in ext2_get_block |
| |
On Sat, 5 Aug 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Aug 2000, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Alexander Viro wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > > > > > > Trace; c014d020 <ext2_find_goal+10/70> > > > > Trace; c014ccd9 <verify_chain+d/34> > > > > Trace; c014cfb7 <ext2_find_near+f/68> > > > > > > What??? > > > > > > static inline int verify_chain(Indirect *from, Indirect *to) > > > { > > > while (from <= to && from->key == *from->p) > > > from++; > > > return (from > to); > > > } > > [snip] > > Now to my problem :) What looks wrong to you? If IKD has a problem, > > I'd like to fix it. > > Umm... If your trace is a list of _all_ calls in chronological order - > no problem, if it's a stack trace... Well, seeing function that doesn't > call anything in the middle of a stack would be... disturbing. I suspect > that it's the former, though. If that's the case - could you add > indentation to the thing? Seeing > ext2_get_goal > ext2_block_to_path > ext2_get_branch > verify_chain > ext2_find_goal > verify_chain > ext2_find_near > ext2_get_branch > verify_chain > ext2_find_goal > verify_chain > ext2_find_near > ... > would make life easier.
Yes, it's the former. I'll see what I can do. (would make reading ktraces a lot easier)
Thanks,
-Mike
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |