Albert D. Cahalan writes:
> Yes. Don't you look at the raw data anyway?
I look at the raw stack data from time to time, but mostly I want
the backtrace, PC and LR converted into something more meaningful,
and I don't want the extra clutter of that particular raw data.
> In theory yes, but in practice no. Your kernel isn't a significant
> portion of your address space, so the chance of random data being
> looked up successfully is very low. Maybe a 1% chance on 32-bit
> hardware, and far less on 64-bit hardware.
Not so. This is my point; on the ARM, when you get stuff like stack
and registers dumped, a lot of the hex numbers can look very much like
addresses in kernel space; most of them are data object symbols and
the like. There can be a lot of these, and suddenly you'd end up with
most of the System.map being output because something in the dump
somewhere looks like its a symbol.
> Somebody else posted a reasonable hack for the [<>] problem.
> His proposal involved letting multiple values share the same
> markers, something like this:
Yep, now that is one idea I like!
_____
|_____| ------------------------------------------------- ---+---+-
| | Russell King [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- ---
| | | | http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html / / |
| +-+-+ --- -+-
/ | THE developer of ARM Linux |+| /|\
/ | | | --- |
+-+-+ ------------------------------------------------- /\\\ |
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
