linux - Linux Kernel (branches are rebased on master from time to time)

Age	Commit message (Collapse)	Author	Files	Lines
2009-02-12	[ARM] 5382/1: unwind: Reorganise the stacktrace support	Catalin Marinas	1	-28/+60
	This patch changes the walk_stacktrace and its callers for easier integration of stack unwinding. The arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.h file is also moved to arch/arm/include/asm/stacktrace.h. Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
2008-07-15	Merge branch 'core/stacktrace' of ↵	Linus Torvalds	1	-0/+1
	git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/linux-2.6-tip * 'core/stacktrace' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/linux-2.6-tip: generic-ipi: powerpc/generic-ipi tree build failure stacktrace: fix build failure on sparc64 stacktrace: export save_stack_trace[_tsk] stacktrace: fix modular build, export print_stack_trace and save_stack_trace backtrace: replace timer with tasklet + completions stacktrace: add saved stack traces to backtrace self-test stacktrace: print_stack_trace() cleanup debugging: make stacktrace independent from DEBUG_KERNEL stacktrace: don't crash on invalid stack trace structs
2008-07-03	stacktrace: export save_stack_trace[_tsk]	Ingo Molnar	1	-0/+1
	Andrew Morton reported this against linux-next: ERROR: ".save_stack_trace" [tests/backtracetest.ko] undefined! Reported-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2008-06-22	[ARM] latencytop support	Nicolas Pitre	1	-4/+30
	Available for !SMP only at the moment. From Russell: \|Basically, if a thread is running on a CPU, thread_saved_fp() is invalid. \|So, the question is: what guarantees do we have here that 'tsk' is not \|running on another CPU? Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@marvell.com> Tested-by: Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@marvell.com> Signed-off-by: Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@marvell.com>
2007-05-30	[ARM] Fix stacktrace FP range checking	Russell King	1	-1/+1
	Fix an oops in the stacktrace code, caused by improper range checking. We subtract 12 off 'fp' before testing to see if it's below the low bound. However, if 'fp' were zero before, it becomes a very large positive number, causing this test to succeed where it should fail. Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
2007-05-15	arm: walk_stacktrace() needs to be exported	Al Viro	1	-0/+2
	oprofile depends on having it Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2007-05-11	[ARM] stacktrace fix	Andrew Morton	1	-9/+3
	ab1b6f03a10ba1f5638188ab06bf46e33ac3a160 said - remove the unused task argument to save_stack_trace, it's always current then broke arm: arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c:56: error: conflicting types for 'save_stack_trace' include/linux/stacktrace.h:11: error: previous declaration of 'save_stack_trace' was here arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c:56: error: conflicting types for 'save_stack_trace' include/linux/stacktrace.h:11: error: previous declaration of 'save_stack_trace' was here Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
2007-04-28	[ARM] Add stacktrace support and make oprofile use it	Russell King	1	-0/+73
	Add support for stacktrace. Use the new stacktrace code with oprofile instead of it's version; there's no point having multiple versions of stacktracing in the kernel. Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>