[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <25356.1271076327@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:45:27 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, David VomLehn <dvomlehn@...co.com>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/23] Make register values available to panic notifiers
Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk> wrote:
> 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.
+1.
I found in FS-Cache and CacheFiles that often the things I most wanted to know
when I had something of the form:
if (A == B)
BUG();
was a and b, so I made the following macro:
#define ASSERTCMP(X, OP, Y) \
do { \
if (unlikely(!((X) OP (Y)))) { \
printk(KERN_ERR "\n"); \
printk(KERN_ERR "AFS: Assertion failed\n"); \
printk(KERN_ERR "%lu " #OP " %lu is false\n", \
(unsigned long)(X), (unsigned long)(Y)); \
printk(KERN_ERR "0x%lx " #OP " 0x%lx is false\n", \
(unsigned long)(X), (unsigned long)(Y)); \
BUG(); \
} \
} while(0)
which I could then call like this:
ASSERTCMP(A, ==, B);
and if the assertion failed, it prints A and B explicitly. This is much
easier than trying to pick the values out of a register dump, especially as
the compiler may be free to clobber A or B immediately after testing them.
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