Sigh, any ideas for a "dump_stack" name?

Sigh, any ideas for a "dump_stack" name?

[Russell King]

Ok,

Still not got 2.5.40 to build...

ARM has, since the year dot, used "dump_stack()" to display any threads
stack, and has the following prototype:

static void dump_stack(struct task_struct *tsk, unsigned long sp)

However, somewhere in the 2.5.34 -> 2.5.40 development, "dump_stack" got
used as a way to call "show_stack" with a value of zero on x86 (which is
another externally visible function.)

Firstly, "dump_stack" is misnamed.  It dumps stack and call trace
information.

Secondly, it creates a small problem - we're running out of names
to describe a function that displays _just_ stack contents without
any call trace information.

So, I propose to change the ARM version to the following, unless someone
else can come up with another name or a fix the poliferation of stack-
displaying functions that the generic kernel seems to require.

dump_random_numbers_from_thread_stack_yes_a_very_long_name_that_wont_clash_with_anything_else()

(Note: it may be a static function, but it is useful on to make it public
for occasional debugging.)

-- 
Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk)                The developer of ARM Linux
             http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html

Re: Sigh, any ideas for a "dump_stack" name?

[Andrew Morton]

Russell King wrote:
> 
> Ok,
> 
> Still not got 2.5.40 to build...
> 
> ARM has, since the year dot, used "dump_stack()" to display any threads
> stack, and has the following prototype:
> 
> static void dump_stack(struct task_struct *tsk, unsigned long sp)
> 
> However, somewhere in the 2.5.34 -> 2.5.40 development, "dump_stack" got
> used as a way to call "show_stack" with a value of zero on x86 (which is
> another externally visible function.)
> 
> Firstly, "dump_stack" is misnamed.  It dumps stack and call trace
> information.

Sorry about that chief.   Daniel very sensibly suggested that the
new one should be called `backtrace();'

> Secondly, it creates a small problem - we're running out of names
> to describe a function that displays _just_ stack contents without
> any call trace information.
> 
> So, I propose to change the ARM version to the following, unless someone
> else can come up with another name or a fix the poliferation of stack-
> displaying functions that the generic kernel seems to require.

The generic kernel should only require two of these functions:
dump_stack() (aka backtrace()) and show_task_trace() - which
traces a different thread.