From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Don Slutz <dslutz@verizon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/12] xenctx: Add stack addr to call
	trace.
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 13:13:17 -0500
Message-ID: <527BD83D.7010606@terremark.com>
References: <1383768500-4245-1-git-send-email-dslutz@terremark.com>	
	<1383768500-4245-8-git-send-email-dslutz@terremark.com>	
	<1383828610.32399.32.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com>	
	<527BA4F6.6030804@terremark.com>	
	<1383835451.32399.47.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com>	
	<527BAC6A.9080109@terremark.com>
	<1383840223.32399.54.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <1383840223.32399.54.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>, Don Slutz <dslutz@verizon.com>
Cc: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>, Don Slutz <Don@CloudSwitch.com>, Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>, xen-devel@lists.xen.org, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 11/07/13 11:03, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-11-07 at 10:06 -0500, Don Slutz wrote:
>
>>>>> What is "stack address" is it the base of the function's stack frame
>>>>> perhaps? Or maybe the top? Or maybe the framepointer?
>>>> It is the address of the stack "word".
>>> I'm afraid I am non the wiser.
>>>
>>> Ian.
>> Does just:
>>
>>     ffffffff803ddf90: ffffffff80048d19 0000000000200800 .......... .....
>> vs
>>     ffffffff803ddf90:  [<ffffffff80048d19>] cpu_idle+0x95
>>
>> help?  The start of the line is the same.
> So it is the address of the word on the stack which contains the return
> address for the function call?
Yes.
     -Don Slutz
> Ian.
>