[PATCHv4 5/6] symbol lookup: introduce dereference_symbol_descriptor()
Sergey Senozhatsky
sergey.senozhatsky at gmail.com
Sat Nov 11 15:49:32 AEDT 2017
On (11/10/17 10:09), Luck, Tony wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 08:48:29AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > -Examples::
> > -
> > - printk("Going to call: %pF\n", gettimeofday);
> > - printk("Going to call: %pF\n", p->func);
> > - printk("%s: called from %pS\n", __func__, (void *)_RET_IP_);
> > - printk("%s: called from %pS\n", __func__,
> > - (void *)__builtin_return_address(0));
> > - printk("Faulted at %pS\n", (void *)regs->ip);
> > - printk(" %s%pB\n", (reliable ? "" : "? "), (void *)*stack);
>
> Did you mean to delete the Examples completely? Wouldn't it
> be better to just update (s/%pF/%pS/g)?
good question. yes, I think I did it deliberately :) we still
kinda have some sort of "examples", right at the beginning of
section "Symbols/Function Pointers"
> Symbols/Function Pointers
> =========================
>
> ::
>
> %pS versatile_init+0x0/0x110
> %ps versatile_init
> %pF versatile_init+0x0/0x110
> %pf versatile_init
> %pSR versatile_init+0x9/0x110
> (with __builtin_extract_return_addr() translation)
> %pB prev_fn_of_versatile_init+0x88/0x88
>
> The ``S`` and ``s`` specifiers are used for printing a pointer in symbolic
> format. They result in the symbol name with (``S``) or without (``s``)
> offsets. If KALLSYMS are disabled then the symbol address is printed instead.
>
> Note, that the ``F`` and ``f`` specifiers are identical to ``S`` (``s``)
> and thus deprecated. We have ``F`` and ``f`` because on ia64, ppc64 and
> parisc64 function pointers are indirect and, in fact, are function
> descriptors, which require additional dereferencing before we can lookup
> the symbol. As of now, ``S`` and ``s`` perform dereferencing on those
> platforms (when needed), so ``F`` and ``f`` exist for compatibility
> reasons only.
>
> The ``B`` specifier results in the symbol name with offsets and should be
> used when printing stack backtraces. The specifier takes into
> consideration the effect of compiler optimisations which may occur
> when tail-call``s are used and marked with the noreturn GCC attribute.
I can return Examples back. don't really have a strong opinion
on this. let me know.
-ss
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list