On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
> The code never did that. In fact many of the problems we had initially
> especially came out of that -- the fallback code that would handle
> this case wasn't fully correct.
I don't keep my emails any more, but you *never* fixed the problems in
Yes, the kernel/unwind.c issues generally got fixed. The infinite loops in
the *callers* never did.
> Also frankly often your analysis about what went wrong was just
Still in denial, I see.
Do you still claim that "the fallback position always did the right
thing"? Despite the fact that the unwinder had sometimes *corrupted* the
incoming information so much that the fallback position was the one that
oopsed? And no, you didn't fix that.
And no, IT DID NOT use probe_kernel_address like you still claim.
Anyway, you work for Suse, I don't care what you do to the Suse kernel.
Maybe it will get stable some day. Somehow, I doubt it.
Xen-devel mailing list