[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <24048.1271070978@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 12:16:18 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: David VomLehn <dvomlehn@...co.com>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, to@...mlehn-lnx2.corp.sa.net,
"linux-arch@...r.kernel.org"@cisco.com, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
maint_arch@...mlehn-lnx2.corp.sa.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/23] Make register values available to panic notifiers
David VomLehn <dvomlehn@...co.com> wrote:
> +NORET_TYPE void panic(const char *fmt, ...)
> +{
> + va_list args;
> + const struct pt_regs *regs;
> + int i;
> +
> + preempt_disable();
> + bust_spinlocks(1);
> + regs = save_ptregs(&__get_cpu_var(panic_panic_regs));
> + va_start(args, fmt);
> + vpanic_with_regs(regs, fmt, args);
> + /* Since vpanic_with_regs doesn't return, we skip va_end() */
> + /* Infinite loop so compiler doesn't complain about this returning */
> + for (i = 0; ; )
> + mdelay(1);
> +}
Can the use of va_start() clobber lots of registers, thereby rendering the
exercise pointless on some arches?
Also, can the save_ptregs() function be out of line asm? The FRV constructed
inline statement is huge (and wrong).
David
--
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