On 2018-11-09, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/ptrace.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/ptrace.h
> > index ee696efec99f..c4dfafd43e11 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/ptrace.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/ptrace.h
> > @@ -172,6 +172,7 @@ static inline unsigned long
On 2018-11-09, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/ptrace.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/ptrace.h
> > index ee696efec99f..c4dfafd43e11 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/ptrace.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/ptrace.h
> > @@ -172,6 +172,7 @@ static inline unsigned long
On 2018-11-06, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 22:59:13 +1100
> Aleksa Sarai wrote:
>
> > The same issue is present in __save_stack_trace
> > (arch/x86/kernel/stacktrace.c). This is likely the only reason that --
> > as Steven said -- stacktraces wouldn't work with ftrace-graph (and
On 2018-11-06, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 22:59:13 +1100
> Aleksa Sarai wrote:
>
> > The same issue is present in __save_stack_trace
> > (arch/x86/kernel/stacktrace.c). This is likely the only reason that --
> > as Steven said -- stacktraces wouldn't work with ftrace-graph (and
On Sat, 3 Nov 2018 13:30:21 -0400
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 01:34:30 +0900
> Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> >
> > > I was thinking of a bitmask that represents the handlers, and use that
> > > to map which handler gets called for which shadow entry for a
> > > particular task.
>
On Sat, 3 Nov 2018 13:30:21 -0400
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 01:34:30 +0900
> Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> >
> > > I was thinking of a bitmask that represents the handlers, and use that
> > > to map which handler gets called for which shadow entry for a
> > > particular task.
>
6 matches
Mail list logo