On Mon, 2015-11-16 at 20:27 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-11-13 at 15:57 +1100, Michael Neuling wrote:
>
> > Print the MSR TM bits in oops messages. This appends them to the
> > end
> > like this:
> > MSR: 8000000502823031 <SF,VEC,VSX,FP,ME,IR,DR,LE,TM[TE]>
> >
> > You get the TM[] only if at least one TM MSR bit is set. Inside
> > the
> > TM[], E means Enabled (bit 32), S means Suspended (bit 33), and T
> > means Transactional (bit 34)
>
> Can you duplicate this into a comment in printtmbits() or on the bit
> definitions, so that I don't have to look up the commit to find the
> explanation.
Ok.
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_PPC_TRANSACTIONAL_MEM
> > +static struct regbit msr_tm_bits[] = {
> > + {MSR_TS_T, "T"},
> > + {MSR_TS_S, "S"},
> > + {MSR_TM, "E"},
> > + {0, NULL}
> > +};
> > +static void printtmbits(unsigned long val)
>
> I realise you followed the lead here with the naming, but can you
> call it
> print_tm_bits() please. MY EYES!
Ok, I've change the rest too -> print_msr_bits(), print_tm_bits(),
print_bits()
>
> > +{
> > + if (val & (MSR_TM | MSR_TS_S | MSR_TS_T)) {
> > + printk(",TM[");
> > + printbits(val, msr_tm_bits, "");
> > + printk("]");
>
> I suspect all these individual printks are going to behave badly if
> we have
> multiple cpus crashing simultaneously. But I won't make you fix that
> here. We
> should look at it sometime though.
Seems anton failed at this one a while back, and since I'm mortal I
might skip this one :-)
Mikey
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
