[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4684FA7A.4030001@goop.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 08:26:34 -0400
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Haavard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@...el.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, Kyle McMartin <kyle@...isc-linux.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] generic bug: use show_regs() instead of dump_stack()
Heiko Carstens wrote:
> [patch] generic bug: use show_regs() instead of dump_stack()
>
> From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
>
> The current generic bug implementation has a call to dump_stack() in
> case a WARN_ON(whatever) gets hit. Since report_bug(), which calls
> dump_stack(), gets called from an exception handler we can do better:
> just pass the pt_regs structure to report_bug() and pass it to
> show_regs() in case of a warning. This will give more debug informations
> like register contents, etc... In addition this avoids some pointless
> lines that dump_stack() emits, since it includes a stack backtrace of
> the exception handler which is of no interest in case of a warning.
> E.g. on s390 the following lines are currently always present in a stack
> backtrace if dump_stack() gets called from report_bug():
>
Yep, seems reasonable to me.
Acked-by: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...source.com>
J
-
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