On Sun 7 Jun 2009 20:13, Mike Frysinger pondered: > On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 18:52, Robin Getz wrote: > > 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)... > > i think having it read ILLEGAL is fine. it's how every other arch > works, and the instruction only gets executed when there is a problem > -- BUG/WARN should not be triggered in the normal case.
I thought they way it was written - it will be added inline to every function - won't it? _______________________________________________ Linux-kernel-commits mailing list [email protected] https://blackfin.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-kernel-commits
