2010/9/18 Andriy Gapon <[email protected]>: > on 18/09/2010 22:00 Andriy Gapon said the following: >> Oh, wow, and I totally overlooked stack_print(). >> Should have read stack(9) from the start. > > New patch. Hope this is better. > I don't like that the printf is duplicated, but couldn't figure out a way to > combine pre-processor and C conditions. > > --- a/sys/kern/subr_kdb.c > +++ b/sys/kern/subr_kdb.c > @@ -37,6 +37,7 @@ __FBSDID("$FreeBSD$"); > #include <sys/pcpu.h> > #include <sys/proc.h> > #include <sys/smp.h> > +#include <sys/stack.h> > #include <sys/sysctl.h> > > #include <machine/kdb.h> > @@ -300,6 +301,15 @@ kdb_backtrace(void) > printf("KDB: stack backtrace:\n"); > kdb_dbbe->dbbe_trace(); > } > +#ifdef STACK > + else { > + struct stack st; > + > + printf("KDB: stack backtrace:\n"); > + stack_save(&st); > + stack_print(&st); > + } > +#endif > } > > /* >
It is still missing checking on opt_stack.h Besides, I'd reconsider having KDB_TRACE explanation in ddb(4) manpage (right now it is rightly there because it is DDB specific only, as long as it offers the backend, but with your change it is a global functionality. Not sure if it worths changing it but however you may have more opinions). Thanks, Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
