[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100412122745.GC28208@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:27:45 +0100
From: Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>
To: David VomLehn <dvomlehn@...co.com>
Cc: 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
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 11:06:09PM -0700, David VomLehn wrote:
> This patch makes panic() and die() registers available to, for example,
> panic notifier functions. Panic notifier functions are quite useful
> for recording crash information, but they don't get passed the register
> values. This makes it hard to print register contents, do stack
> backtraces, etc. The changes in this patch save the register state when
> panic() is called and introduce a function for die() to call that allows
> it to pass in the registers it was passed.
Can you explain why you want this?
I'm wondering about the value of saving the registers; normally when a panic
occurs, it's because of a well defined reason, and not because something
went wrong in some CPU register; to put it another way, a panic() is a
more controlled exception than a BUG() or a bad pointer dereference.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of:
--
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