On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 10:56:16AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> Andrew Morton <[email protected]> 28.07.06 10:19 >>>
> >
> >More unwinder problems. Seems to be specific to -mm.
> >(Followups on-list are preferred, thanks).
>
> That's another of the lose ends - while Andi and I had decided to put
> a proper stack frame in place for the switch to the irq stack in the
> interrupt macro, we had forgotten about doing something similar for
> call_softirq() - as the code is written currently, there simply is now
> way of annotating the code properly. If Andi is agreeable to this,
> then I'll just change the code so that it'll have a proper stack frame.
Fine by me. I'll just fix it up.
>
> The recursive traces appear to result from the fact that when we
> did the change to the interrupt macro, we neglected the fact that
> show_trace() expects to find the old stack pointer as the very first
> item on the interrupt stack, which isn't the case anymore. The value
> of where the subsequent stack access fails is a little strange, though.
> Making this assumption be true again would, however, require adding
> a push to both the interrupt macro and call_softirq. I'm afraid Andi's
> not going to be too happy about that, but on the other hand I can't
> see any other possible way that would get away without adding
> some code to these paths.
I can just add the push.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
