From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S966288AbbLPRYY (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Dec 2015 12:24:24 -0500 Received: from smtprelay0124.hostedemail.com ([216.40.44.124]:46725 "EHLO smtprelay.hostedemail.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S966269AbbLPRYX (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Dec 2015 12:24:23 -0500 X-Session-Marker: 726F737465647440676F6F646D69732E6F7267 X-Spam-Summary: 30,2,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,rostedt@goodmis.org,:::::::,RULES_HIT:41:355:379:541:599:800:960:988:989:1260:1277:1311:1313:1314:1345:1359:1437:1515:1516:1518:1534:1539:1593:1594:1711:1730:1747:1777:1792:2393:2553:2559:2562:3138:3139:3140:3141:3142:3352:3622:3865:3866:3867:3868:3870:3872:3873:3874:4184:5007:6119:6261:7875:7903:8531:10004:10400:10848:10967:11026:11232:11658:11914:12114:12438:12517:12519:12740:13069:13071:13073:13311:13357:13523:13524:14659:21060:21067:21080:30030:30034:30054:30089:30090:30091,0,RBL:none,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fn,MSBL:0,DNSBL:none,Custom_rules:0:0:0,LFtime:2,LUA_SUMMARY:none X-HE-Tag: flock43_60255c5363728 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 1687 Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 12:24:19 -0500 From: Steven Rostedt To: Michael Ellerman Cc: LKML , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, chuhu@redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] ppc: Implement save_stack_trace_regs() Message-ID: <20151216122419.385f1306@gandalf.local.home> In-Reply-To: <1449622985.6028.8.camel@ellerman.id.au> References: <20151208135056.718b7668@gandalf.local.home> <1449620422.6028.6.camel@ellerman.id.au> <20151208192844.70fb33e6@gandalf.local.home> <1449622985.6028.8.camel@ellerman.id.au> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.13.0 (GTK+ 2.24.28; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 09 Dec 2015 12:03:05 +1100 Michael Ellerman wrote: > > > Should I take this via powerpc or do you want it to go in via tracing? > > > > You can take it. And you can replace the PT_R1 if you want. I just > > noticed that it was defined, and I try to use macro names instead of > > hard coded numbers. I was actually looking for a "PT_SP" :-) > > OK thanks. > > Looks like we actually have: > > #define kernel_stack_pointer(regs) ((regs)->gpr[1]) > > So that would be the most self documenting way to do it I guess, though I've > never actually seen that macro used anywhere before :) Hi, Are you going to take this, or do you want me to? -- Steve