On 11/05/2022 08:45, Petr Mladek wrote:
> [...]
> DIE_OOPS and PANIC_NOTIFIER are from different enum.
> It feels like comparing apples with oranges here.
>
> IMHO, the proper way to unify the two notifiers is
> a check of the @self parameter. Something like:
>
> static int trace_die_panic_handle
On 29/04/2022 10:56, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> [...]
> No. The fallthrough keyword is only needed when there's code between case
> labels. As it is very common to list multiple cases for the same code path.
> That is:
>
> case DIE_OOPS:
> case PANIC_NOTIFIER:
> do_dump = 1;
On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 10:46:35 -0300
"Guilherme G. Piccoli" wrote:
> Thanks Sergei and Steven, good idea! I thought about the switch change
> you propose, but I confess I got a bit confused by the "fallthrough"
> keyword - do I need to use it?
No. The fallthrough keyword is only needed when there'
On 29/04/2022 10:23, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 12:22:44 +0300
> Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
>
>>> + switch (ev) {
>>> + case DIE_OOPS:
>>> + do_dump = 1;
>>> + break;
>>> + case PANIC_NOTIFIER:
>>> + do_dump = 1;
>>> + break;
>>
>>W
On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 12:22:44 +0300
Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> > + switch (ev) {
> > + case DIE_OOPS:
> > + do_dump = 1;
> > + break;
> > + case PANIC_NOTIFIER:
> > + do_dump = 1;
> > + break;
>
>Why not:
>
> case DIE_OOPS:
> case PAN
Hello!
On 4/28/22 1:49 AM, Guilherme G. Piccoli wrote:
> Currently the tracing dump_on_oops feature is implemented
> through separate notifiers, one for die/oops and the other
> for panic. With the addition of panic notifier "id", this
> patch makes use of such "id" to unify both functions.
>
>
