Re: [discuss] Re: [PATCH 2/3] reliable stack trace support (x86-64)

> >Maybe I'm dense but I still don't get - frame has a pt_regs so why 
> >isn't the caller allowed to know about that fact?
> 
> Because the fact that there is a regs fields and the PC is accessible through it is architecture specific, yet the
> caller (kernel/unwind.c) ought to be architecture independent.

I doubt we have any architecture where the instruction pointer is not in pt_regs,
but ok.

-Andi

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• References:
  • [PATCH 2/3] reliable stack trace support (x86-64)
    • From: "Jan Beulich" <[email protected]>
  • Re: [discuss] Re: [PATCH 2/3] reliable stack trace support (x86-64)
    • From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
  • Re: [discuss] Re: [PATCH 2/3] reliable stack trace support (x86-64)
    • From: "Jan Beulich" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: [patch] nbd: kill obsolete changelog, add GPL
• Next by Date: Re: [patch] add input_enable_device()
• Previous by thread: Re: [discuss] Re: [PATCH 2/3] reliable stack trace support (x86-64)
• Next by thread: [PATCH 1/3] reliable stack trace support
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]