Re: [Crash-utility] arm64: "bt -f" output

2016-06-15 Thread Dave Anderson
- Original Message - > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 10:42:03AM -0400, Dave Anderson wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:30:24AM -0400, Dave Anderson wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dave, > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 04:37:42PM -0400, Dave Anderson wrote: > > > > > > Hi Takah

Re: [Crash-utility] arm64: "bt -f" output

2016-06-15 Thread AKASHI Takahiro
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 10:42:03AM -0400, Dave Anderson wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:30:24AM -0400, Dave Anderson wrote: > > > > > > > Dave, > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 04:37:42PM -0400, Dave Anderson wrote: > > > > > Hi Takahiro, > > > > > > > > > > To address my concern

Re: [Crash-utility] arm64: "bt -f" output

2016-06-15 Thread AKASHI Takahiro
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 04:56:43PM -0400, Dave Wysochanski wrote: > On Mon, 2016-06-13 at 11:30 -0400, Dave Anderson wrote: > > > > - Original Message - > > > Dave, > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 04:37:42PM -0400, Dave Anderson wrote: > > > > Hi Takahiro, > > > > > > > > To address

Re: [Crash-utility] arm64: "bt -f" output

2016-06-14 Thread Dave Wysochanski
On Mon, 2016-06-13 at 11:30 -0400, Dave Anderson wrote: > > - Original Message - > > Dave, > > > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 04:37:42PM -0400, Dave Anderson wrote: > > > Hi Takahiro, > > > > > > To address my concerns about your patch, I added a few additional changes > > > and attached >

Re: [Crash-utility] arm64: "bt -f" output

2016-06-14 Thread Dave Anderson
- Original Message - > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:30:24AM -0400, Dave Anderson wrote: > > > > > Dave, > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 04:37:42PM -0400, Dave Anderson wrote: > > > > Hi Takahiro, > > > > > > > > To address my concerns about your patch, I added a few additional > > >

Re: [Crash-utility] arm64: "bt -f" output

2016-06-13 Thread AKASHI Takahiro
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:30:24AM -0400, Dave Anderson wrote: > > > Dave, > > > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 04:37:42PM -0400, Dave Anderson wrote: > > > Hi Takahiro, > > > > > > To address my concerns about your patch, I added a few additional changes > > > and attached > > > it to this email.

Re: [Crash-utility] arm64: "bt -f" output

2016-06-13 Thread Dave Anderson
- Original Message - > Dave, > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 04:37:42PM -0400, Dave Anderson wrote: > > Hi Takahiro, > > > > To address my concerns about your patch, I added a few additional changes > > and attached > > it to this email. The changes are: > > > > (1) Prevent the stack dum

Re: [Crash-utility] arm64: "bt -f" output

2016-06-12 Thread AKASHI Takahiro
Dave, On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 04:37:42PM -0400, Dave Anderson wrote: > Hi Takahiro, > > To address my concerns about your patch, I added a few additional changes and > attached > it to this email. The changes are: > > (1) Prevent the stack dump "below" the #0 level. Yes, the stack data region

Re: [Crash-utility] arm64: "bt -f" output

2016-06-10 Thread Dave Anderson
Hi Takahiro, To address my concerns about your patch, I added a few additional changes and attached it to this email. The changes are: (1) Prevent the stack dump "below" the #0 level. Yes, the stack data region is contained within the incoming frame parameters, but it's ugly and we really

Re: [Crash-utility] arm64: "bt -f" output

2016-06-08 Thread Dave Anderson
- Original Message - > Dave, > > When I looked at the output from "bt -f" command, I found that stack dump > starts from frame.sp in arm64_print_stackframe_entry(). > Usage of stack frames on arm64 is a bit different from that on x86, and > using frame.fp is, I believe, much useful (and

[Crash-utility] arm64: "bt -f" output

2016-06-07 Thread AKASHI Takahiro
Dave, When I looked at the output from "bt -f" command, I found that stack dump starts from frame.sp in arm64_print_stackframe_entry(). Usage of stack frames on arm64 is a bit different from that on x86, and using frame.fp is, I believe, much useful (and accurate) for crash users. See my patch att