From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752494Ab1AFQWo (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 6 Jan 2011 11:22:44 -0500
Received: from mail-fx0-f46.google.com ([209.85.161.46]:54761 "EHLO
	mail-fx0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751761Ab1AFQWn (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 6 Jan 2011 11:22:43 -0500
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version
         :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent;
        b=GdgHBVLNrmVxN5AJJSm+0HdWsjQEdNMtgNOoC+A7rnNX2Bu3QrdvHTmcpu2XrQYKnP
         ueW9mOKkZ7eXeguC5R2E79AWLMREOdBzjp+F8iJxewFw4k9S/Yj9SzLUeemiC1z+bIlF
         pXz9RaGOUwnCX5gwWQTVeAPUOgcjQ+JOw9n3w=
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 17:22:38 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@novell.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>,
        Soeren Sandmann Pedersen <sandmann@redhat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] x86: Fix rbp saving in pt_regs on irq entry
Message-ID: <20110106162236.GB2308@nowhere>
References: <1294325513-14276-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
 <1294325513-14276-2-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>
 <4D25EB4B020000780002ABF7@vpn.id2.novell.com>
 <20110106154536.GA2308@nowhere>
 <4D25F79F020000780002AC20@vpn.id2.novell.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4D25F79F020000780002AC20@vpn.id2.novell.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 04:10:55PM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 06.01.11 at 16:45, Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Before we had:
> > 
> > 
> > 	leaveq
> > 
> > 	CFI_RESTORE             rbp
> > 	CFI_DEF_CFA_REGISTER    rsp
> > 	CFI_ADJUST_CFA_OFFSET   -8
> > 
> > So CFI_RESTORE means rbp has now the value of the base frame of
> > the calling frame (the base frame pointer of the interrupted proc) ?
> 
> No - all it means is that %rbp now has its original (caller or
> interrupted procedure) value again (i.e. an unwinder should not
> try to read it from the stack [or other previously recorded
> location] anymore).
> 
> > And what follows means that rsp-8 points to the return address?
> 
> No - .cfi_def_cfa_register says which register serves as the frame
> pointer, and .cfi_adjust_cfa_offset says to adjust the offset from
> the frame pointer to the top [or bottom] of frame. At any time
> 
> 	CFA = cfa_register + cfa_offset
> 
> with CFA being what all locations on the stack are expressed
> relative to.

Ok.

So here rsp points to pt_regs::r11

I don't understand why locations relative to the stack must be
expressed here by taking rsp - 8 as a base.