From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cooper Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] xmalloc: add support for checking the pool integrity Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 10:39:03 +0000 Message-ID: <54915D47.3020400@citrix.com> References: <1418758405-32200-1-git-send-email-mdontu@bitdefender.com> <549095E3.30202@citrix.com> <5490BAE4.5070108@linaro.org> <5490BFBD.7010809@citrix.com> <5490C22F.4020505@linaro.org> <549156C1.5000708@citrix.com> <549159D4.2040304@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <549159D4.2040304@linaro.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Julien Grall , =?UTF-8?B?TWloYWkgRG9uyJt1?= , xen-devel@lists.xen.org Cc: keir@xen.org, ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com, ian.campbell@citrix.com, jbeulich@suse.com, tim@xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 17/12/14 10:24, Julien Grall wrote: > > > On 17/12/2014 10:11, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 16/12/14 23:37, Julien Grall wrote: >> Introducing a new bugframe is precicely what I meant by "this doesn't >> look hard". x86 currently has one more bugframe than arm, being >> BUGFRAME_run_fn. > > And how do you pass the pointer of the function? As I said, ARM lacks > of %c because of compiler issue. > > I'm out of idea on how to do simply on ARM. Let me know if you have a > good solution. > > What I meant with introduce a new bug frame adding BUGFRAM_dump_stack. > > Regards, > I don't know about good, but stringly typing the function pointer and stashing it in the same way as the assert message would work. (I can see now why you suggested BUGFRAME_dump_stack, but it would be nice to find a more generic alternative if possible.) ~Andrew