From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Thu, 07 Aug 2008 15:19:30 +0100 (BST) Received: from relay01.mx.bawue.net ([193.7.176.67]:48365 "EHLO relay01.mx.bawue.net") by ftp.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S20024198AbYHGOTX (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Aug 2008 15:19:23 +0100 Received: from lagash (p549ADE1B.dip.t-dialin.net [84.154.222.27]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay01.mx.bawue.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6F5C48919; Thu, 7 Aug 2008 16:19:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ths by lagash with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KR6Km-0000Fa-JJ; Thu, 07 Aug 2008 16:19:20 +0200 Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 16:19:20 +0200 From: Thiemo Seufer To: Ralf Baechle Cc: David Daney , Chris Friesen , linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: looking for help interpreting softlockup/stack trace Message-ID: <20080807141920.GA27494@networkno.de> References: <48989AFE.5000500@nortel.com> <20080805191618.GB8629@linux-mips.org> <4899F41C.5070401@avtrex.com> <20080807134323.GA15703@linux-mips.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080807134323.GA15703@linux-mips.org> 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: 20152 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: ths@networkno.de Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips Ralf Baechle wrote: > 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? AFAIR all such symbols are branch labels or debug info labels, the module loader should never use them. (But I don't know if kgdb uses them.) Thiemo