On 08/09/2007 11:37 PM, Jesper Juhl wrote:
On 09/08/07, Rene Herman <rene.herman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 08/09/2007 10:49 PM, Jesper Juhl wrote:
On 09/08/07, Rene Herman <rene.herman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 08/09/2007 09:29 PM, Jesper Juhl wrote:
On 09/08/07, Stavros Passas <stabat@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
For example, one line could be :
[<ffffffff802478c1>] acct_collect+0x42/0x18e
[<address_of_function>] name_of_function+offset_into_function/size_of_function
"return address as found on stack", rather than "address_of_function".
Right, as found on stack, I guess I should have elaborated on that bit - thanks.
Well... hope I'm not annoying you or anything, but the "return address" bit
was actually more the point than the "as found on stack" bit. If the printed
name is "name_of_function" then the printed address is not
address_of_function (but address_of_function+offset_into_function).
call foo
address of caller gets pushed onto the stack, that's the addr printed,
the address that would later be returned to by
ret
agreed?
This conversation stands a fairly high chance of confusing the poster. You said:
[<address_of_function>] name_of_function+offset_into_function/size_of_function
Taking the example he posted -- 0xffffffff802478c1 is not the address of the
function "acct_collect".
It's the return address _inside_ acct_collect to which flow of control would
return; it's &acct_collect + 0x42. As such calling it "address_of_function"
while you called acct_collect "name_of_function" was incorrect. That's all.
Rene.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send an email with
"unsubscribe kernelnewbies" to ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Please read the FAQ at http://kernelnewbies.org/FAQ
