Andrew Morton reported this against linux-next:
ERROR: ".save_stack_trace" [tests/backtracetest.ko] undefined!
Reported-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Available for !SMP only at the moment.
From Russell:
|Basically, if a thread is running on a CPU, thread_saved_fp() is invalid.
|So, the question is: what guarantees do we have here that 'tsk' is not
|running on another CPU?
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com>
Tested-by: Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@marvell.com>
Signed-off-by: Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@marvell.com>
Fix an oops in the stacktrace code, caused by improper range checking.
We subtract 12 off 'fp' before testing to see if it's below the low
bound. However, if 'fp' were zero before, it becomes a very large
positive number, causing this test to succeed where it should fail.
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
ab1b6f03a1 said
- remove the unused task argument to save_stack_trace, it's always current
then broke arm:
arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c:56: error: conflicting types for 'save_stack_trace'
include/linux/stacktrace.h:11: error: previous declaration of 'save_stack_trace' was here
arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c:56: error: conflicting types for 'save_stack_trace'
include/linux/stacktrace.h:11: error: previous declaration of 'save_stack_trace' was here
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
Add support for stacktrace. Use the new stacktrace code with
oprofile instead of it's version; there's no point having
multiple versions of stacktracing in the kernel.
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
