From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Don Slutz <dslutz@verizon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 13/15] xenctx: Add convert of more
	registers to symbols
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 09:54:39 -0400
Message-ID: <5329A19F.2010703@terremark.com>
References: <1395180940-23901-1-git-send-email-dslutz@verizon.com>
	<1395180940-23901-14-git-send-email-dslutz@verizon.com>
	<532963A402000078001258B2@nat28.tlf.novell.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: <532963A402000078001258B2@nat28.tlf.novell.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: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>, Don Slutz <dslutz@verizon.com>
Cc: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>, xen-devel@lists.xen.org, Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 03/19/14 04:30, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 18.03.14 at 23:15, Don Slutz <dslutz@verizon.com> 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).

Ok, I think I get this, will rework.
    -Don Slutz

> Jan
>