Re: Is notify_die being overloaded?
From: Robin Holt
Date: Mon Apr 17 2006 - 07:34:01 EST
On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 05:51:44AM -0500, Robin Holt wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2006 at 05:52:10PM +1000, Keith Owens wrote:
> > Robin Holt (on Sat, 15 Apr 2006 05:43:56 -0500) wrote:
> > Unfortunately the ebents are ambiguous. On IA64 BUG() maps to break 0,
> > but break 0 is also used for debugging[*]. Which makes it awkward to
> > differentiate between a kernel error and a debug event, we have to
> > first ask the debuggers if the event if for them then, if the debuggers
> > do not want the event, drop into the die_if_kernel event.
> I think this still would argue for a notify_debugger() sort of callout
> which would read something like:
I finally think I understand your point. You are saying that kdb would
have to register for the notify_debugger() chain and would therefore
get in the way of handle_page_fault(). What about changing notify_die()
callout in handle_page_fault() into a notify_page_fault(). That actually
feels a lot better now that you got me to think about it.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/