[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xen-devel] Re: [patch 13/26] Xen-paravirt_ops: Consistently wrap paravirt ops callsites to make them patchable
- To: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx>
- From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:49:39 -0700 (PDT)
- Cc: jeremy@xxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, mingo@xxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx, virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, chrisw@xxxxxxxxxxxx, virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 02:25:49 -0700
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> So what is your proposed alternative to handle long backtraces?
> You didn't answer that question. Please do, I'm curious about your thoughts
> in this area.
the thing is, I'd rather see a long backtrace that is hard to decipher but
that *never* *ever* causes any additional problems, over a pretty one.
Because that's really the issue: do you want a "pretty" backtrace, or do
you want one that is rock solid but has some crud in it.
I'll take the rock solid one any day. Especially as even the pretty one
won't fix the most common problem, which is "I don't see the caller" (due
to inlining or tail-calls).
In contrast, the ugly backtrace will have some "garbage entries" from
previous frames that didn't get overwritten, but there have actually been
(admittedly rare) cases where those garbage entries have given hints about
what happened just before.
Linus
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
