From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:43:39 +0100 (BST) Received: from ditditdahdahdah-dahdahdahditdit.dl5rb.org.uk ([217.169.26.28]:18843 "EHLO ditditdahdahdah-dahdahdahditdit.dl5rb.org.uk") by ftp.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S20022944AbYHGNnc (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Aug 2008 14:43:32 +0100 Received: from denk.linux-mips.net (denk.linux-mips.net [127.0.0.1]) by ditditdahdahdah-dahdahdahditdit.dl5rb.org.uk (8.14.2/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m77DhO0u016257; Thu, 7 Aug 2008 14:43:26 +0100 Received: (from ralf@localhost) by denk.linux-mips.net (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) id m77DhNNB016255; Thu, 7 Aug 2008 14:43:23 +0100 Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 14:43:23 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: David Daney Cc: Chris Friesen , linux-mips@linux-mips.org, Thiemo Seufer Subject: Re: looking for help interpreting softlockup/stack trace Message-ID: <20080807134323.GA15703@linux-mips.org> References: <48989AFE.5000500@nortel.com> <20080805191618.GB8629@linux-mips.org> <4899F41C.5070401@avtrex.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4899F41C.5070401@avtrex.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) 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: 20151 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: ralf@linux-mips.org Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 11:57:32AM -0700, David Daney wrote: >>> In the trace below, is "epc" the program counter at the time of the >>> timer interrupt? How does "ra" fit into this, given that the >>> function whose address it contains isn't seen in the stack trace >>> until quite a ways down? >> >> $LBB378 is an internal symbol. The value of RA may not be very informative >> if it was overwritten by a random subroutine call. >> > > I have thought about eliminating these internal labels when the module's symbols are read. Would this make any sense? I think so. Maybe that could even be done when the module is linked. I don't think there are ever any relocations against these local symbols. Thiemo? Ralf