[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180129180105.khoilqb6cijsw4sh@treble>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 12:01:05 -0600
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Arjan Van De Ven <arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@...el.com>,
Asit Mallick <asit.k.mallick@...el.com>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/35] objtool: Another static block fail
On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 05:42:29PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Josh, how would you feel about adding the bits required to make objtool
> a full disassembler? That would make it far easier to visualse the state
> and I don't think its _that_ much more, all the difficult bits are
> already done afaict, all we need is infrastructure to print the already
> fully decoded instruction.
It sounds interesting, but I have no idea what you mean :-) Can you
elaborate?
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists