On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 05:25:27PM -0400, Dave Anderson wrote:
>
>
> Hi Takahiro,
>
> Here is another thing that I would prefer not to change/omit.
>
> In the current code, the raw exception frame data is dumped as
> part of the "bt -[fF]" output, just prior to it being translated
> as an
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 04:44:41PM -0400, Dave Anderson wrote:
>
> > Hi Takahiro,
> >
> > I applied patches 1/2 and 2/2 from the v5 patchset. But I can't
> > believe the results are what you intended?
>
> Obviously I meant 1/4 and 2/4 above.
>
> However, I was under the impression that the
Dave,
If you don't like my patches, that is OK.
Applying them or not is totally up to you.
I will *never* submit my patches again.
Having said so, I think I would better explain my intentions on the code.
On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 04:09:01PM -0400, Dave Anderson wrote:
>
>
> Hi Takahiro,
>
>
Hi Takahiro,
Here is another thing that I would prefer not to change/omit.
In the current code, the raw exception frame data is dumped as
part of the "bt -[fF]" output, just prior to it being translated
as an exception frame:
crash> bt -F
PID: 1223 TASK: 800020ef5780 CPU: 3
- Original Message -
>
>
> Hi Takahiro,
>
> I applied patches 1/2 and 2/2 from the v5 patchset. But I can't
> believe the results are what you intended?
Obviously I meant 1/4 and 2/4 above.
However, I was under the impression that the 3/4 patch was a standalone
patch that only
Hi Takahiro,
I applied patches 1/2 and 2/2 from the v5 patchset. But I can't
believe the results are what you intended?
For example, taking the 4.6 vmcore that you gave to me, here is the
current crash utility's output of "bt -a", where the crashing task
entered crash_kexec() via the
