[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <56E1876002000078000DB479@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 06:40:32 -0700
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...e.com>
To: "Jianyu Zhan" <nasa4836@...il.com>
Cc: <jdike@...toit.com>, <heukelum@...tmail.fm>, <brgerst@...il.com>,
<luto@...nel.org>, <x86@...nel.org>, <tglx@...utronix.de>,
<dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, <joe@...ches.com>,
<mingo@...hat.com>, <bp@...e.de>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/traps: show unhandled signal for i386 in
do_trap()
>>> On 10.03.16 at 13:19, <nasa4836@...il.com> wrote:
> Commit abd4f7505baf ("x86: i386-show-unhandled-signals-v3") did turn on
> the showing-unhandled-signal behaviour for i386 for some exception handlers,
> but for no reason do_trap() is left out(my naive guess is because turning it
> on
> for do_trap() would be too noisy since do_trap() is shared by several
> exceptions).
>
> And since the same commit make "show_unhandled_signals" a debug tunable(in
> /proc/sys/debug/exception-trace), and x86 by default turning it on. So it
> would be
> strange for i386 users who turing it on manually and expect seeing the
> unhandled signal
> output in log, but nothing.
>
> This patch turns it on for i386 in do_trap().
>
> Signed-off-by: Jianyu Zhan <nasa4836@...il.com>
I've been carrying this patch for years, without ever being able to
decide whether the distinction between 32-bit and 64-bit was
intentional.
Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists