[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170321154122.GT5680@worktop>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 16:41:22 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...hat.com>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...or.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
arjan@...ux.intel.com, bp@...en8.de, richard.weinberger@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] x86: Implement __WARN using UD0
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 10:32:52AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 04:14:46PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > +static int fixup_bug(struct pt_regs *regs, int trapnr)
> > > > +{
> > > > + if (trapnr != X86_TRAP_UD)
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +
> > > > + switch (report_bug(regs->ip, regs)) {
> > > > + case BUG_TRAP_TYPE_NONE:
> > > > + case BUG_TRAP_TYPE_BUG:
> > > > + break;
> > > > +
> > > > + case BUG_TRAP_TYPE_WARN:
> > > > + regs->ip += 2;
> > > > + return 1;
> > >
> > > For self-documentation purposes, maybe use a define for the length of
> > > the ud0 instruction?
> >
> > Well, UD0 and UD2 really. LENGTH_UD0_OR_UD2 is a bit of a fail, name
> > wise.
>
> Why UD2? Warnings are UD0-only, no? What about UD0_LEN? Or at least a
> comment would be helpful I think.
Oh, right, we only resume on WARN,.. Doh.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists