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

From: Andrew Morton
Date: Fri Sep 29 2006 - 04:52:53 EST

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 01:41:21 -0700
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx> 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.

We need to clean that output up a bit. For a while x86 was printing "BUG:"
in front of both warnings and BUGs because Ingo through it made things
clearer - we've lost that.

> >> 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.

Is OK - I'm pretty happy with what I have now. I'll clump various patches
together and we can take another look at it. I guess I'll merge the core
and x86, send x86_64 to Andi, let the ppc guys worry about the powerpc

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at