From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: janboe.ye@gmail.com (ye janboe) Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 23:54:17 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] arm: show_regs dump stack when ARM_UNWIND enable In-Reply-To: <1279640276.10002.35.camel@e102109-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <20100720152431.GA17092@localhost.localdomain> <1279640276.10002.35.camel@e102109-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Yes. both are same. Is it ok to remove backtrace.S if ARM_UNWIND is enable? Catalin Is it ok to merge this patch first and then try replace __bactrace in next patch? Janboe 2010/7/20 Catalin Marinas : > On Tue, 2010-07-20 at 23:24 +0800, janboe wrote: >> __backtrace is empty when ARM_UNWIND enable, so instead dump_stack >> >> Signed-off-by: janboe >> --- >> ?arch/arm/kernel/process.c | ? ?4 ++++ >> ?1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/process.c b/arch/arm/kernel/process.c >> index acf5e6f..e7ad878 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/process.c >> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/process.c >> @@ -271,7 +271,11 @@ void show_regs(struct pt_regs * regs) >> ? ? ? printk("\n"); >> ? ? ? printk("Pid: %d, comm: %20s\n", task_pid_nr(current), current->comm); >> ? ? ? __show_regs(regs); >> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_UNWIND >> + ? ? dump_stack(); >> +#else >> ? ? ? __backtrace(); >> +#endif >> ?} > > It looks like both dump_stack() and __backtrace() (with FRAME_POINTER) > have pretty much the same semantics. Maybe we could define __backtrace() > to just call dump_stack() when ARM_UNWIND. > > -- > Catalin > >