On Mon 8 Jun 2009 07:46, Mike Frysinger pondered: > On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 07:46, Robin Getz wrote: > > 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? > > yes, but the illegal instruction doesnt actually get executed unless > there is a problem
Right - but anyone looking at the function where a BUG/WARN can occur will see ILLEGAL in the disassembly. I'm just concerned that it might generate a unnecessary question or two... I guess I'm OK with it as is - until those questions come up, and then I'll add something to the disassembler (which should be the only place necessary to have something). _______________________________________________ Linux-kernel-commits mailing list [email protected] https://blackfin.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-kernel-commits
