From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 15:41:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 15:41:45 -0400 Received: from ppp0.ocs.com.au ([203.34.97.3]:2822 "HELO mail.ocs.com.au") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sun, 5 Aug 2001 15:41:43 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 From: Keith Owens To: kaih@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: PPC? (Was: Re: [RFC] /proc/ksyms change for IA64) In-Reply-To: Your message of "05 Aug 2001 11:29:00 +0200." <86HgALWHw-B@khms.westfalen.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 05:41:47 +1000 Message-ID: <29464.997040507@ocs3.ocs-net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 05 Aug 2001 11:29:00 +0200, kaih@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) wrote: >kaos@ocs.com.au (Keith Owens) wrote on 02.08.01 in <22165.996722560@kao2.melbourne.sgi.com>: > >> The IA64 use of descriptors for function pointers has bitten ksymoops. >> For those not familiar with IA64, &func points to a descriptor >> containing { &code, &data_context }. > >That sounds suspiciously like what I remember from PPC. How is this solved >on the PPC side? Best guess, without access to a PPC box, is that it is not solved. Any arch where function pointers go via a descriptor will have this problem. PPC users, does /proc/ksyms contain the address of the function code or the address of a descriptor which points to the code? It is easy to tell, if function entries in /proc/ksyms are close together (8-128 bytes apart) and do not match the addresses in System.map then PPC has the same problem as IA64. If this is true, what is the layout of a PPC function descriptor so I can handle that case as well?