[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [patch 13/26] Xen-paravirt_ops: Consistently wrap paravirt ops callsites to make them patchable
- To: Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 22:49:45 +0100
- Cc: jeremy@xxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>, jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx, virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, chrisw@xxxxxxxxxxxx, virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, mingo@xxxxxxx, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 13:50:05 -0700
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
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
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
