[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <23e1665d-7500-4ecb-a208-59d1c5514e87@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 10:33:27 +0800
From: Alex Shi <seakeel@...il.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, alexs@...nel.org
Cc: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86/dumpstack: uniform die messages prompt
On 3/26/24 6:43 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 03:45:12PM +0800, alexs@...nel.org wrote:
>> @@ -405,8 +407,8 @@ static void __die_header(const char *str, struct pt_regs *regs, long err)
>> pr = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT) ? " PREEMPT_RT" : " PREEMPT";
>>
>> printk(KERN_DEFAULT
>> - "%s: %04lx [#%d]%s%s%s%s%s\n", str, err & 0xffff, ++die_counter,
>> - pr,
>> + DIE_PROMPT "%s: %04lx [#%d]%s%s%s%s%s\n", str, err & 0xffff,
>
> Why do you need this DIE_PROMPT if you can simply do:
>
> "Oops: %s: %04lx... "
>
> ?
>
> And yes, I think I'd prefer having an "oops" in there as it is a lot
> more prominent. It is called a "kernel oops" everywhere.
Uh, 'Oops' is also a good preempt. If no other objection, I'd like to change this. :)
Thank a lot!
>
> Thx.
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists