[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160815153038.xll35k4f6uu7idp4@treble>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2016 10:30:38 -0500
From: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Byungchul Park <byungchul.park@....com>,
Nilay Vaish <nilayvaish@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 19/51] x86/entry/32: rename 'error_code' to
'common_exception'
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 12:40:03AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com> wrote:
> > The 'error_code' label is awkwardly named, especially when it shows up
> > in a stack trace. Move it to its own local function and rename it to
> > 'common_exception', analagous to the existing 'common_interrupt'.
> >
> > This also makes related stack traces more sensible.
>
> This is okay with me. You could also call it "error_entry" for
> consistency with x86_64.
On x86_64, error_entry is just a helper function which doesn't call the
C handler, and so it doesn't usually show up in the stack trace. So its
scope is quite different from error_code/common_exception.
--
Josh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists