From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EDB492C00B7 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 17:08:09 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <1345792051.29170.25.camel@pasglop> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] powerpc: Uprobes port to powerpc From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Michael Ellerman Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 17:07:31 +1000 In-Reply-To: <1345770803.13865.10.camel@concordia> References: <20120822082205.GA29216@in.ibm.com> <20120822082708.GB29216@in.ibm.com> <1345696100.3338.21.camel@concordia> <20120823055820.GA14603@in.ibm.com> <1345770803.13865.10.camel@concordia> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: peterz@infradead.org, lkml , oleg@redhat.com, Paul Mackerras , Anton Blanchard , Ingo Molnar , ppcdev , Srikar Dronamraju List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 2012-08-24 at 11:13 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > Yeah. A NULL regs here is a kernel bug, so I think it's actually > preferable to crash than silently return. Or best, if you think there's a remote chance that the bug might hit: if (WARN(!regs)) return Cheers, Ben. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756514Ab2HXHIV (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Aug 2012 03:08:21 -0400 Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:59689 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753175Ab2HXHIR (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Aug 2012 03:08:17 -0400 Message-ID: <1345792051.29170.25.camel@pasglop> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] powerpc: Uprobes port to powerpc From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Michael Ellerman Cc: ananth@in.ibm.com, ppcdev , lkml , Paul Mackerras , Anton Blanchard , peterz@infradead.org, oleg@redhat.com, Srikar Dronamraju , Ingo Molnar Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 17:07:31 +1000 In-Reply-To: <1345770803.13865.10.camel@concordia> References: <20120822082205.GA29216@in.ibm.com> <20120822082708.GB29216@in.ibm.com> <1345696100.3338.21.camel@concordia> <20120823055820.GA14603@in.ibm.com> <1345770803.13865.10.camel@concordia> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3-0ubuntu6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2012-08-24 at 11:13 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > Yeah. A NULL regs here is a kernel bug, so I think it's actually > preferable to crash than silently return. Or best, if you think there's a remote chance that the bug might hit: if (WARN(!regs)) return Cheers, Ben.