![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
In message <957BD1C2BF3CD411B6C500A0C944CA2601F11711@pdsmsx32.pd.intel.com> you write: > Hi, Rusty > There is a example that could explain why I want the module structure's > pointer. > If we want to place kernel probes on all PIO instrcutions of a > device driver for debuging purpose, only knowing symbol's address is > not enough. We need the base address of .text section. How do you > think about this example ? I don't know where the .text section is anymore, once the module is loaded. And just the .text section might not be enough on some archs. I think it would be cleaner to have a userspace program which parses the module, figures out how it is laid out in memory (this will be arch specific!) and then (using the base address from /proc/modules) tells the kernel "insert a probe at address 0xc1234567". This should be far more flexible, I think. Thoughts? Rusty. -- Anyone who quotes me in their sig is an idiot. -- Rusty Russell. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:32 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||