From 2c344e9d6e1938fdf15e93c56d6fe42f8410e9d3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Arjan van de Ven Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 12:23:37 -0800 Subject: 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 Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar --- arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) (limited to 'arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c') diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c b/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c index 6b1f6f6f866..87d103ded1c 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c @@ -99,7 +99,7 @@ print_context_stack(struct thread_info *tinfo, frame = frame->next_frame; bp = (unsigned long) frame; } else { - ops->address(data, addr, bp == 0); + ops->address(data, addr, 0); } print_ftrace_graph_addr(addr, data, ops, tinfo, graph); } -- cgit v1.2.3