Re: [Crash-utility] [PATCH v2 03/10] back_trace: don't check /proc if !LOCAL_ACTIVE()

----- Original Message ----- > On 04/25, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > - if (ACTIVE() && !INSTACK(esp, bt)) { > > + if (LOCAL_ACTIVE() && !INSTACK(esp, bt)) { > > Of course, this is wrong, please see v2 below. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Subject: [PATCH v2 03/10] back_trace: don't check /proc if !LOCAL_ACTIVE() > > Obviously the /proc/$tc->pid check can only make sense if LOCAL_ACTIVE(). > > Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg(a)redhat.com&gt; > --- > kernel.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/kernel.c b/kernel.c > index a6fa7a6..cf0a6a0 100644 > --- a/kernel.c > +++ b/kernel.c > @@ -2902,7 +2902,7 @@ back_trace(struct bt_info *bt) > > if (ACTIVE() && !INSTACK(esp, bt)) { > sprintf(buf, "/proc/%ld", bt->tc->pid); > - if (!file_exists(buf, NULL)) > + if (!(LOCAL_ACTIVE() && file_exists(buf, NULL))) > error(INFO, "task no longer exists\n"); > else > error(INFO, > -- > 2.5.0 This doesn't make sense to me. If it's !LOCAL_ACTIVE() (i.e. hybrid-live-dump), then why would you want to call file_exists()? Shouldn't it be: LOCAL_ACTIVE() and !file_exists() Dave