[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20060929091319.GB41098@muc.de>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 11:13:19 +0200
From: Andi Kleen <ak@....de>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Hugh Dickens <hugh@...itas.com>,
Michael Ellerman <michael@...erman.id.au>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/4] Generic BUG handling.
On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 02:10:19AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On 29 Sep 2006 10:57:45 +0200
> Andi Kleen <ak@....de> wrote:
>
> > > Some architectures (powerpc) implement WARN using the same mechanism;
> > > if the illegal instruction was the result of a WARN, then report_bug()
> > > returns 1; otherwise it returns 0.
> >
> > In theory we could do that on x86 too (and skipping the instruction),
> > the only problem
> > is that the only guaranteed to fault opcode is ud2 :/. Ok maybe we could
> > reserve some int XXX vector.
> >
> > % gid WARN_ON | grep -v arch | wc -l
> > 299
>
> powerpc sets a bit in the __LINE__ number to indicate that it was a
> WARN_ON. That'll work on all architectures.
We still would need an architecture dependent way to skip the opcode
though (just returning would raise it again). On x86
regs->eip += 2 (rip on x86-64)
should be enough
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists