>> >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.
>
>Hmm, which patches did you want? I got a double digit number of unwind
>related patches already, some of them quite intrusive, and all of them would be clearly
>too much. My preference for 2.6.18 would be really only absolutely critical stuff
>because I'm paranoid of breaking more.
I was thinking of the fixes to the fallback logic and the bottom-of-stack annotations.
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]
