[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1159519754.15896.2.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 18:49:14 +1000
From: Michael Ellerman <michael@...erman.id.au>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andi Kleen <ak@....de>, Hugh Dickens <hugh@...itas.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/4] Generic BUG handling.
On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 01:41 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge 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.
Yeah, you don't want to go messing up legacy architectures.
> >> 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.
Yeah ok there's a few competing concerns there, it's a good start
though.
cheers
--
Michael Ellerman
OzLabs, IBM Australia Development Lab
wwweb: http://michael.ellerman.id.au
phone: +61 2 6212 1183 (tie line 70 21183)
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors,
we borrow it from our children. - S.M.A.R.T Person
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (192 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists