Murilo Opsfelder Araujo <muri...@linux.ibm.com> a écrit :
Simplify the message format by using REG_FMT as the register format. This
avoids having two different formats and avoids checking for MSR_64BIT.
Are you sure it is what we want ?
Won't it change the behaviour for a 32 bits app running on a 64bits kernel ?
Christophe
Signed-off-by: Murilo Opsfelder Araujo <muri...@linux.ibm.com>
---
arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c | 12 ++++--------
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c
index 4faab4705774..047d980ac776 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c
@@ -311,17 +311,13 @@ static bool show_unhandled_signals_ratelimited(void)
static void show_signal_msg(int signr, struct pt_regs *regs, int code,
unsigned long addr)
{
- const char fmt32[] = KERN_INFO "%s[%d]: unhandled signal %d " \
- "at %08lx nip %08lx lr %08lx code %x\n";
- const char fmt64[] = KERN_INFO "%s[%d]: unhandled signal %d " \
- "at %016lx nip %016lx lr %016lx code %x\n";
-
if (!unhandled_signal(current, signr))
return;
- printk(regs->msr & MSR_64BIT ? fmt64 : fmt32,
- current->comm, current->pid, signr,
- addr, regs->nip, regs->link, code);
+ pr_info("%s[%d]: unhandled signal %d at "REG_FMT \
+ " nip "REG_FMT" lr "REG_FMT" code %x\n",
+ current->comm, current->pid, signr, addr,
+ regs->nip, regs->link, code);
}
void _exception_pkey(int signr, struct pt_regs *regs, int code,
--
2.17.1
