Re: boot failure, "DWARF2 unwinder stuck at 0xc0100199"

From: Jan Beulich
Date: Tue Aug 22 2006 - 03:59:06 EST

>>> Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx> 22.08.06 06:20 >>>
>On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 09:47:18 -0700
>"Randy.Dunlap" <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > The 'stuck' unwinder issue at hand already has a fix, though planned to
>> > be merged for 2.6.19 only. The crash after switching to the legacy
>> > stack trace code is bad, though, but has little to do with the unwinder
>> > additions/changes. The way that code reads the stack is just
>> > inappropriate in contexts where things must be expected to be broken.
>> "merged for 2.6.19" meaning:
>> - in (before) 2.6.19, or
>> - after 2.6.19 is released
>> If "after," then it will likely need to be added to -stable also,
>> so it might as well go in "before" 2.6.19 is released.

My understanding of 'for' is that Andi will send to Linus after in the 2.6.19
merge window.

>Guys, this unwinder change has been quite problematic. We really cannot
>let this badness out into 2.6.18 - it degrades our ability to debug every
>subsystem in the entire kernel. Would marking it CONFIG_BROKEN get us back
>to 2.6.17 behaviour?

I'd prefer pushing into 2.6.18 some of the patches currently scheduled for
2.6.19 over marking it CONFIG_BROKEN. But that's clearly not my decision.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at