x86: don't pretend that non-framepointer stack traces are reliable

Without frame pointers enabled, the x86 stack traces should not
pretend to be reliable; instead they should just be what they are:
unreliable.

The effect of this is that they have a '?' printed in the stacktrace,
to warn the reader that these entries are guesses rather than known
based on more reliable information.

Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c b/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c
index 6b1f6f6f866172b41b4b64e1590bb40f2de19315..87d103ded1c325a71d0ba65126bfd81996f78915 100644 (file)
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c
@@ -99,7 +99,7 @@ print_context_stack(struct thread_info *tinfo,
                                frame = frame->next_frame;
                                bp = (unsigned long) frame;
                        } else {
-                               ops->address(data, addr, bp == 0);
+                               ops->address(data, addr, 0);
                        }
                        print_ftrace_graph_addr(addr, data, ops, tinfo, graph);
                }