Commit 2c344e9d authored by Arjan van de Ven's avatar Arjan van de Ven Committed by Ingo Molnar

x86: don't pretend that non-framepointer stack traces are reliable

Without frame pointers enabled, the x86 stack traces should not
pretend to be reliable; instead they should just be what they are:
unreliable.

The effect of this is that they have a '?' printed in the stacktrace,
to warn the reader that these entries are guesses rather than known
based on more reliable information.
Signed-off-by: default avatarArjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarIngo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
parent d5e397cb
...@@ -99,7 +99,7 @@ print_context_stack(struct thread_info *tinfo, ...@@ -99,7 +99,7 @@ print_context_stack(struct thread_info *tinfo,
frame = frame->next_frame; frame = frame->next_frame;
bp = (unsigned long) frame; bp = (unsigned long) frame;
} else { } else {
ops->address(data, addr, bp == 0); ops->address(data, addr, 0);
} }
print_ftrace_graph_addr(addr, data, ops, tinfo, graph); print_ftrace_graph_addr(addr, data, ops, tinfo, graph);
} }
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment