[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87v8ax1x6x.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 11:59:58 +0206
From: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH printk v2 3/4] printk: Skip unfinalized records in panic
On 2023-10-18, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com> wrote:
> I think about "empty line record" and "records with missing data".
> And I would rename NO_LPOS to EMPTY_LINE_LPOS to make the meaning
> more obvious.
OK.
> Also it would make sense to use 0x2 for EMPTY_LINE_LPOS and
>
> #define FAILED_LPOS 0x1
> #define EMPTY_LINE_LPOS 0x2
> #define DATALESS_LPOS_MASK (FAILED_LPOS | EMPTY_LINE_LPOS)
>
> #define LPOS_DATALESS(lpos) ((lpos) & DATALESS_LPOS_MASK)
The existing debugging tools use bit0 to identify if there is data. Bit1
is really the _reason_ for the missing data. This can be seen in the
definition of LPOS_DATALESS(), but it needs to be documented
better. (Ideally where FAILED_LPOS and EMPTY_LINE_LPOS are defined.)
John
Powered by blists - more mailing lists