Messages in this thread | | | From | Bernd Schubert <> | Subject | Re: frame unwinder patches | Date | Fri, 5 Sep 2008 15:52:47 +0200 |
| |
On Friday 05 September 2008 15:33:17 Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 11:19:21 +0200 > > Bernd Schubert <bs@q-leap.de> wrote: > > > not printing the ? would be trivial (for some backtraces we do > > > that), but so far hasn't been seen as desirable because you lose > > > information in those hard-to-debug cases when you need anything you > > > can get from the backtrace. > > > > I see your point, but in most cases it is rather annoying. > > ... if you see backtraces regularly there's something wrong ;-)
It always depends on what you are doing. Presently I'm fixing the reset-handler of the mpt fusion driver and since I'm not $hardcore_kernel_hacker_with_super_scsi_knowlegde, but only know C and a little bit about the kernel API I insert dump_stack() and printks all over the place into the code to understand what is going on.
Well, this reset part is mostly done, now this problem: http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=118039573814323&w=2
So yes, there is something wrong ;) Unfortunately so far nobody cared about these bugs we are hitting regularily.
> > (and if you really care it's 1 line of code to turn it off)
It is not only this, I think the dwarf2 stack unwinder patches provide by far better traces than the in-kernel unwinder. At least ever since I applied these patches to our kernels, I was able to read the stack dumps...
Cheers, Bernd
-- Bernd Schubert Q-Leap Networks GmbH
| |