From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
Cc: michael@ellerman.id.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de>, Hugh Dickens <hugh@veritas.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/4] Generic BUG handling.
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 01:52:23 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060929015223.76d8d85a.akpm@osdl.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <451CDC31.6060407@goop.org>
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 01:41:21 -0700
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> wrote:
> Michael Ellerman wrote:
> >> + printk(KERN_EMERG "------------[ cut here ]------------\n");
> >>
> >
> > I'm not sure I'm big on the cut here marker.
> >
>
> x86 has it. I figured its more important to not change x86 output than
> powerpc.
We need to clean that output up a bit. For a while x86 was printing "BUG:"
in front of both warnings and BUGs because Ingo through it made things
clearer - we've lost that.
> >> i386 implements CONFIG_DEBUG_BUGVERBOSE, but x86-64 and powerpc do
> >> not. This should probably be made more consistent.
> >>
> >
> > It looks like if you do this you _might_ be able to share struct
> > bug_entry, or at least have consistent members for each arch. Which
> > would eliminate some of the inlines you have for accessing the bug
> > struct.
> >
> Yeah, its a bit of a toss-up. powerpc wants to hide the warn flag
> somewhere, which either means having a different structure, or using the
> fields differently. CONFIG_DEBUG_BUGVERBOSE supporters (ie, i386) want
> to make the structure completely empty in the !DEBUG_BUGVERBOSE case
> (which doesn't currently happen).
> > It needed a bit of work to get going on powerpc:
> >
>
> Thanks. I'll try to fold all this together into a new patch when things
> settle down.
Is OK - I'm pretty happy with what I have now. I'll clump various patches
together and we can take another look at it. I guess I'll merge the core
and x86, send x86_64 to Andi, let the ppc guys worry about the powerpc
bits.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-09-29 8:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20060928225444.439520197@goop.org>
[not found] ` <20060928225452.229936605@goop.org>
2006-09-28 23:32 ` [PATCH RFC 1/4] Generic BUG handling Andrew Morton
2006-09-28 23:43 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2006-09-29 0:07 ` Andrew Morton
2006-09-29 5:07 ` Michael Ellerman
2006-09-29 8:41 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2006-09-29 8:49 ` Michael Ellerman
2006-09-29 8:52 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2006-09-29 19:44 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2006-09-29 19:54 ` Andrew Morton
2006-09-29 8:57 ` Andi Kleen
2006-09-29 9:10 ` Andrew Morton
2006-09-29 9:13 ` Andi Kleen
2006-09-29 9:18 ` Andrew Morton
2006-09-29 9:16 ` Andrew Morton
2006-09-29 9:33 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2006-09-29 9:36 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20060929015223.76d8d85a.akpm@osdl.org \
--to=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=ak@muc.de \
--cc=hugh@veritas.com \
--cc=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=michael@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox