Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 13/15] xenctx: Add convert of more registers to symbols

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 18.03.14 at 23:15, Don Slutz <dslutz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> --- a/tools/xentrace/xenctx.c
> +++ b/tools/xentrace/xenctx.c
> @@ -333,10 +333,14 @@ static void print_special(void *regs, const char *name, 
> unsigned int mask, int w
>      printf("\n");
>      for (i = 0; mask; mask >>= 1, ++i)
>          if (mask & 1) {
> -            if (width == 4)
> -                printf("%s%u: %08"PRIx32"\n", name, i, ((uint32_t *) 
> regs)[i]);
> -            else
> -                printf("%s%u: %08"PRIx64"\n", name, i, ((uint64_t *) 
> regs)[i]);
> +            if (width == 4) {
> +                printf("%s%u: %08"PRIx32, name, i, ((uint32_t *) regs)[i]);
> +                print_symbol(((uint32_t *) regs)[i], KERNEL_DATA_ADDR);
> +            } else {
> +                printf("%s%u: %016"PRIx64, name, i, ((uint64_t *) regs)[i]);
> +                print_symbol(((uint64_t *) regs)[i], KERNEL_DATA_ADDR);
> +            }
> +            printf("\n");

I don't think this is reasonable for all special registers, and hence
I think you ought to pass in a flag indicating whether the register
is holding some sort of address (which may become further
complicated if only part of a register forms an address, so maybe
passing in a mask would be even better, with the mask being zero
indicating that this isn't an address at all).

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel