On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 09:39:18PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:

quoted

quoted

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 just want an as exact backtrace as possible. I also think
that we can make the unwinder robust enough.

Any reason you can't put the exact back trace in "[xxx]" and the ones we
see on the stack which dont look like call trace as ?xxx? It makes the
code a bit trickier but we depend on the quality of traces

Linus is worried about the unwinder crashing -- that wouldn't help with that.

What the (now out of tree) unwinder does is to check if it finishes
the trace and if not fall back to the old unwinder.

-Andi