x86: don't pretend that non-framepointer stack traces are reliable
Without frame pointers enabled, the x86 stack traces should not pretend to be reliable; instead they should just be what they are: unreliable. The effect of this is that they have a '?' printed in the stacktrace, to warn the reader that these entries are guesses rather than known based on more reliable information. Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
This commit is contained in:
parent
d5e397cb49
commit
2c344e9d6e
@ -99,7 +99,7 @@ print_context_stack(struct thread_info *tinfo,
|
|||||||
frame = frame->next_frame;
|
frame = frame->next_frame;
|
||||||
bp = (unsigned long) frame;
|
bp = (unsigned long) frame;
|
||||||
} else {
|
} else {
|
||||||
ops->address(data, addr, bp == 0);
|
ops->address(data, addr, 0);
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
print_ftrace_graph_addr(addr, data, ops, tinfo, graph);
|
print_ftrace_graph_addr(addr, data, ops, tinfo, graph);
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user