On Sun 7 Jun 2009 18:20, Mike Frysinger pondered: > On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 18:15, Robin Getz wrote: > > On Sun 7 Jun 2009 17:24, [email protected] pondered: > >> Revision > >> 6605 > > <http://blackfin.uclinux.org/gf/project/linux-kernel/scmsvn/?action=browse&path=/&view=rev&root=linux-kernel&revision=6605> > >> Author > >> vapier <http://blackfin.uclinux.org/gf/user/vapier/> > >> Date > >> 2009-06-07 16:24:10 -0500 (Sun, 07 Jun 2009) > > > >> #ifdef CONFIG_BUG > >> + > >> +#define BFIN_BUG_OPCODE 0xefcd > > > > So - I think hooking GENERIC_BUG up is good -- but before we willy-nilly > > start > > defining new opcodes - there needs to be a little more discussion about > > exactly what it should be - and this discussion needs to include more than > > just us... > > > > I'm also assuming that we might want to add support for this in the > > assembler? > > (eventually? or never?) > > there is no reason for the opcode to be seen outside of the kernel. > the assembler shouldnt disassemble it.
What happens when someone looks at it with objdump? or gdb (JTAG) or kgdb sees it? I think "kernel bug/warn" or something is better than "invalid instruction" (which is what would happen today)... _______________________________________________ Linux-kernel-commits mailing list [email protected] https://blackfin.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-kernel-commits
