Re: [PATCH RFC 1/4] Generic BUG handling.

[Michael Ellerman <michael@ellerman.id.au>]

On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 01:41 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Michael Ellerman wrote:
> >> +       printk(KERN_EMERG "------------[ cut here ]------------\n");
> >>     
> >
> > I'm not sure I'm big on the cut here marker.
> >   
> 
> x86 has it.  I figured its more important to not change x86 output than 
> powerpc.

Yeah, you don't want to go messing up legacy architectures.

> >> i386 implements CONFIG_DEBUG_BUGVERBOSE, but x86-64 and powerpc do
> >> not.  This should probably be made more consistent.
> >>     
> >
> > It looks like if you do this you _might_ be able to share struct
> > bug_entry, or at least have consistent members for each arch. Which
> > would eliminate some of the inlines you have for accessing the bug
> > struct.
> >   
> Yeah, its a bit of a toss-up.  powerpc wants to hide the warn flag 
> somewhere, which either means having a different structure, or using the 
> fields differently.  CONFIG_DEBUG_BUGVERBOSE supporters (ie, i386) want 
> to make the structure completely empty in the !DEBUG_BUGVERBOSE case 
> (which doesn't currently happen).
> > It needed a bit of work to get going on powerpc:
> >   
> 
> Thanks.  I'll try to fold all this together into a new patch when things 
> settle down.

Yeah ok there's a few competing concerns there, it's a good start
though.

cheers

-- 
Michael Ellerman
OzLabs, IBM Australia Development Lab

wwweb: http://michael.ellerman.id.au
phone: +61 2 6212 1183 (tie line 70 21183)

We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors,
we borrow it from our children. - S.M.A.R.T Person

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part