[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070320214945.GG4286@bingen.suse.de>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 22:49:45 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
jeremy@...p.org, xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, jbeulich@...ell.com,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, chrisw@...s-sol.org,
virtualization@...ts.osdl.org,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>, anthony@...emonkey.ws,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [patch 13/26] Xen-paravirt_ops: Consistently wrap paravirt ops callsites to make them patchable
On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 09:39:18PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > Because that's really the issue: do you want a "pretty" backtrace, or do
> > > you want one that is rock solid but has some crud in it.
> >
> > I just want an as exact backtrace as possible. I also think
> > that we can make the unwinder robust enough.
>
> Any reason you can't put the exact back trace in "[xxx]" and the ones we
> see on the stack which dont look like call trace as ?xxx? It makes the
> code a bit trickier but we depend on the quality of traces
Linus is worried about the unwinder crashing -- that wouldn't help with that.
What the (now out of tree) unwinder does is to check if it finishes
the trace and if not fall back to the old unwinder.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists