From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from oss.sgi.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g6PC29Rw001746 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 05:02:09 -0700 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.5/8.12.3/Submit) id g6PC29VQ001745 for linux-mips-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 05:02:09 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: oss.sgi.com: majordomo set sender to owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com using -f Received: from sgi.com (sgi-too.SGI.COM [204.94.211.39]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with SMTP id g6PC24Rw001736 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 05:02:04 -0700 Received: from hell (buserror-extern.convergence.de [212.84.236.66]) by sgi.com (980327.SGI.8.8.8-aspam/980304.SGI-aspam: SGI does not authorize the use of its proprietary systems or networks for unsolicited or bulk email from the Internet.) via ESMTP id FAA09717 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 05:03:17 -0700 (PDT) mail_from (js@convergence.de) Received: from js by hell with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17Xh5K-0001xK-00; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 13:47:10 +0200 Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 13:47:10 +0200 From: Johannes Stezenbach To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" Cc: linux-mips@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: _stext is ill-defined / SysRq-T broken Message-ID: <20020725114710.GA7482@convergence.de> Mail-Followup-To: Johannes Stezenbach , "Maciej W. Rozycki" , linux-mips@oss.sgi.com References: <20020724181708.GA5399@convergence.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=IN_REP_TO version=2.20 X-Spam-Level: Sender: owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 12:08:15PM +0200, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Johannes Stezenbach wrote: > > > I suggest the patch below to fix the bad formatting, but I'm > > not shure about _stext. Should kernel_entry be placed into the .text > > section, or should _stext = _ftext in ld.script? > > I'll check your patch at run-time later -- I've noticed that the current > output is less than satisfying. I just noticed that my patch garbles Oops output, because I removed the initial "\n" from the printk("Call Trace"). It can be solved by adding a printk("\n") at the very end of show_stack(). I grepped the whole kernel for other uses of show_trace() and show_stack(), and found nothing that would conflict with it. Johannes