[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <mhng-76c68381-da6b-4b8c-97c9-e38d503b93bc@palmer-si-x1c4>
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2019 12:35:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>
To: vincentc@...estech.com
CC: aou@...s.berkeley.edu, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
Jim Wilson <jimw@...ive.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
deanbo422@...il.com, vincentc@...estech.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] riscv: Fix debug instruction check and support trap-based WARN()
On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 02:31:28 PST (-0800), vincentc@...estech.com wrote:
> The handler for the debug exception will call is_valid_bugaddr(bugaddr) to
> check if the instruction in bugaddr is a real debug instruction. However,
> the expected instruction, ebreak, is possibly translated to c.ebreak by
> assmebler when C extension is supported. This patchset will add c.ebreak
> into the check mechanism. In addition, BUG() is currently unable to work in
> the kernel module due to an inappropriated condition in is_valid_bugaddr().
> This issue will be fixed in this patchset. Finally, this patchset enables
> WARN() related functions to trap the code to help developers debug it.
>
>
>
>
>
> Vincent Chen (3):
> riscv: Add the support for c.ebreak check in is_valid_bugaddr()
> riscv: Support BUG() in kernel module
> riscv: Make WARN() related functions able to trigger a trap exception
I'm finding this patch set a bit hard to follow, and I think it has more diff
than is necessary. For example, the first patch introduces a new die() only to
have it removed by the third patch. There's also some unnecessary
non-functional diff, like
@@ -149,12 +161,13 @@ int is_valid_bugaddr(unsigned long pc)
if (probe_kernel_address((bug_insn_t *)pc, insn))
return 0;
if ((insn & __INSN_LENGTH_MASK) == __INSN_LENGTH_32)
- return insn == __BUG_INSN_32;
+ return (insn == __BUG_INSN_32);
else
- return (insn & __COMPRESSED_INSN_MASK) == __BUG_INSN_16;
+ return ((insn & __COMPRESSED_INSN_MASK) == __BUG_INSN_16);
}
#endif /* CONFIG_GENERIC_BUG */
+
void __init trap_init(void)
{
/*
I like the idea of the patch set, though. Do you have time to clean it up and
submit a v2?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists