[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250226124733.10b4b5fa@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2025 12:47:33 -0500
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senpartnership.com>, Greg KH
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Miguel Ojeda
<miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>, Ventura Jack <venturajack85@...il.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Linus
Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
airlied@...il.com, boqun.feng@...il.com, david.laight.linux@...il.com,
hch@...radead.org, ksummit@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, Ralf Jung <post@...fj.de>, Josh Poimboeuf
<jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: C aggregate passing (Rust kernel policy)
On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 12:41:30 -0500
Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev> wrote:
> It's been awhile since I've looked at one, I've been just automatically
> switching back to frame pointers for awhile, but - I never saw
> inaccurate backtraces, just failure to generate a backtrace - if memory
> serves.
OK, maybe if the bug was bad enough, it couldn't get access to the ORC
tables for some reason. Not having a backtrace on crash is not as bad as
incorrect back traces, as the former is happening when the system is dieing
and live kernel patching doesn't help with that.
>
> When things die down a bit more I might be able to switch back and see
> if I get something reportable, I'm still in bug crunching mode :)
Appreciate it.
Thanks,
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists