From 29a679754b1a2581ee456eada6c2de7ce95068bb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Steven Rostedt Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 23:19:09 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] x86/stacktrace: return 0 instead of -1 for stack ops If we return -1 in the ops->stack for the stacktrace saving, we end up breaking out of the loop if the stack we are tracing is in the exception stack. This causes traces like: -0 [002] 34263.745825: raise_softirq_irqoff <-__blk_complete_request -0 [002] 34263.745826: <= 0 <= 0 <= 0 <= 0 <= 0 <= 0 <= 0 By returning "0" instead, the irq stack is saved as well, and we see: -0 [003] 883.280992: raise_softirq_irqoff <-__hrtimer_star t_range_ns -0 [003] 883.280992: <= hrtimer_start_range_ns <= tick_nohz_restart_sched_tick <= cpu_idle <= start_secondary <= <= 0 <= 0 [ Impact: record stacks from interrupts ] Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt --- arch/x86/kernel/stacktrace.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/x86/kernel/stacktrace.c index f7bddc2e37d1..4aaf7e48394f 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kernel/stacktrace.c +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/stacktrace.c @@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ save_stack_warning_symbol(void *data, char *msg, unsigned long symbol) static int save_stack_stack(void *data, char *name) { - return -1; + return 0; } static void save_stack_address(void *data, unsigned long addr, int reliable) -- 2.30.2