From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Thu, 14 Nov 2002 22:26:51 +0100 (CET) Received: from nixon.xkey.com ([209.245.148.124]:58501 "HELO nixon.xkey.com") by linux-mips.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 22:26:51 +0100 Received: (qmail 5832 invoked from network); 14 Nov 2002 21:26:39 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO localhost.conservativecomputer.com) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 14 Nov 2002 21:26:39 -0000 Received: (from lindahl@localhost) by localhost.conservativecomputer.com (8.11.6/8.11.0) id gAELCWr01830; Thu, 14 Nov 2002 13:12:32 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: localhost.localdomain: lindahl set sender to lindahl@keyresearch.com using -f Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 13:12:32 -0800 From: Greg Lindahl To: Ralf Baechle Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: explain to me how this works... Message-ID: <20021114131232.B1706@wumpus.internal.keyresearch.com> Mail-Followup-To: Ralf Baechle , linux-mips@linux-mips.org References: <20021005095335.B4079@lucon.org> <20021113174200.A2874@wumpus.internal.keyresearch.com> <20021114193924.A5610@linux-mips.org> <20021114113045.D1494@wumpus.internal.keyresearch.com> <20021114120746.E28717@mvista.com> <20021114211251.C5610@linux-mips.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20021114211251.C5610@linux-mips.org>; from ralf@linux-mips.org on Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 09:12:51PM +0100 Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 647 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: lindahl@keyresearch.com Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 09:12:51PM +0100, Ralf Baechle wrote: > Unlikely to help him. The return value 4183 of socket that he's observing > is the syscall number of socket(2). Thank you, I should have noticed that one right off. My sprinkle of printks already tells me that strace is a liar - no surprise there. strace says: socket(PF_PACKET, SOCK_DGRAM, 0) = 4183 socket(PF_PACKET, SOCK_DGRAM, 0) = 4183 socket(PF_PACKET, SOCK_DGRAM, 0) = -1 EAFNOSUPPORT (Address family not supported by protocol) printk says: sys_socket returning 0 sys32_socket returning 0 sys_socket returning -124 sys32_socket returning -124 Note strace sees 3 syscalls. I only printk at the return statement, and there are 2 of those. I'll add more printks... -- greg