From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030416AbWI2Iwi (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Sep 2006 04:52:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030419AbWI2Iwi (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Sep 2006 04:52:38 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:36251 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030416AbWI2Iwg (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Sep 2006 04:52:36 -0400 Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 01:52:23 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Cc: michael@ellerman.id.au, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andi Kleen , Hugh Dickens , Paul Mackerras Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/4] Generic BUG handling. Message-Id: <20060929015223.76d8d85a.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <451CDC31.6060407@goop.org> References: <20060928225444.439520197@goop.org> <20060928225452.229936605@goop.org> <1159506427.25820.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> <451CDC31.6060407@goop.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.7 (GTK+ 2.8.17; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 01:41:21 -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. 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 bits.