>>> Andrew Morton <[email protected]> 22.08.06 06:20 >>>
>On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 09:47:18 -0700
>"Randy.Dunlap" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > The 'stuck' unwinder issue at hand already has a fix, though planned to
>> > be merged for 2.6.19 only. The crash after switching to the legacy
>> > stack trace code is bad, though, but has little to do with the unwinder
>> > additions/changes. The way that code reads the stack is just
>> > inappropriate in contexts where things must be expected to be broken.
>>
>> "merged for 2.6.19" meaning:
>> - in (before) 2.6.19, or
>> - after 2.6.19 is released
>>
>> If "after," then it will likely need to be added to -stable also,
>> so it might as well go in "before" 2.6.19 is released.
>
>Precisely.
My understanding of 'for' is that Andi will send to Linus after in the 2.6.19
merge window.
>Guys, this unwinder change has been quite problematic. We really cannot
>let this badness out into 2.6.18 - it degrades our ability to debug every
>subsystem in the entire kernel. Would marking it CONFIG_BROKEN get us back
>to 2.6.17 behaviour?
I'd prefer pushing into 2.6.18 some of the patches currently scheduled for
2.6.19 over marking it CONFIG_BROKEN. But that's clearly not my decision.
Jan
-
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]
