On 25 October 2013 20:54, Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 12:17:51PM +0100, Sandeepa Prabhu wrote: >> Add info prints in sample kprobe handlers for ARM and ARM64 >> architecture. >> >> Signed-off-by: Sandeepa Prabhu <sandeepa.pra...@linaro.org> >> --- >> samples/kprobes/kprobe_example.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/samples/kprobes/kprobe_example.c >> b/samples/kprobes/kprobe_example.c >> index 366db1a..0521246 100644 >> --- a/samples/kprobes/kprobe_example.c >> +++ b/samples/kprobes/kprobe_example.c >> @@ -42,6 +42,14 @@ static int handler_pre(struct kprobe *p, struct pt_regs >> *regs) >> " ex1 = 0x%lx\n", >> p->addr, regs->pc, regs->ex1); >> #endif >> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM >> + printk(KERN_INFO "pre_handler: p->addr = 0x%p, pc = 0x%lx\n", >> + p->addr, regs->ARM_pc); >> +#endif >> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM64 >> + printk(KERN_INFO "pre_handler: p->addr = 0x%p, pc = 0x%lx\n", >> + p->addr, (long)regs->pc); >> +#endif > > Huh? Why can't you combine these two together and either unconditionall cast > to long, or use void * and %p? pt_regs member names are different: regs->pc (arm64) vs. regs->ARM_pc (arm32). It is still possible to use instruction_pointer(regs) for both architectures, but this needs including asm/ptrace.h which I am not sure good thing to do in samples/
Thanks, Sandeepa > > Will > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
