The crazy user can unset 'CONFIG_BUG' in menuconfig: "> General setup >
Configure standard kernel features (expert users) > BUG() Support".
But in fact, we always need it, and quite a few of architectures have
already implemented it (e.g. alpha, arc, arm, avr32, blackfin, cris,
frv, ia64, m68k, m
On Thursday 23 May 2013, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > The problem is: trying to fix that will mean the result is a larger
> > kernel than if you just do the usual arch-implemented thing of placing
> > an defined faulting instruction at the BUG() site - which defeats the
> > purpose of turning off
On 05/23/2013 05:12 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> wrote:
>> > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 10:40:29AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>> >> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Chen Gang wrote:
>> > -config BUG
>> > - bool "B
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:39:37AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 23 May 2013, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > The problem is: trying to fix that will mean the result is a larger
> > > kernel than if you just do the usual arch-implemented thing of placing
> > > an defined faulting instru
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 10:40:29AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Chen Gang wrote:
> > -config BUG
> > - bool "BUG() support" if EXPERT
> > - default y
> > - help
> > - Disabling this option eliminates support for BUG and WARN,
> > r
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Chen Gang wrote:
> The crazy user can unset 'CONFIG_BUG' in menuconfig: "> General setup >
> Configure standard kernel features (expert users) > BUG() Support".
>
> But in fact, we always need it, and quite a few of architectures have
Sorry, but we don't. I think
On Thursday 23 May 2013, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > -config BUG
> > - bool "BUG() support" if EXPERT
> > - default y
> > - help
> > - Disabling this option eliminates support for BUG and WARN,
> > reducing
> > - the size of your kernel image and potentially q
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 10:40:29AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Chen Gang wrote:
>> > -config BUG
>> > - bool "BUG() support" if EXPERT
>> > - default y
>> > - help
>> > -
Arnd Bergmann writes:
> On Thursday 23 May 2013, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> > The problem is: trying to fix that will mean the result is a larger
>> > kernel than if you just do the usual arch-implemented thing of placing
>> > an defined faulting instruction at the BUG() site - which defeats th
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 03:09:50AM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann writes:
>
> > On Thursday 23 May 2013, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >> > The problem is: trying to fix that will mean the result is a larger
> >> > kernel than if you just do the usual arch-implemented thing of plac
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 12:59:43PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 23 May 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > So, if you want to use this, then you should update the CONFIG_BUG text
> > to include a warning to this effect:
> >
> > Warning: if CONFIG_BUG is turned off, and cont
On Thursday 23 May 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> So, if you want to use this, then you should update the CONFIG_BUG text
> to include a warning to this effect:
>
> Warning: if CONFIG_BUG is turned off, and control flow reaches
> a BUG(), the system behaviour will be undefined.
On 05/23/2013 06:59 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> You don't just want to avoid the code for printing the bug message and
> the invalid instruction, we also want the compiler to not emit the
> function call or check the enum for unexpected values. The meaning of
> BUG() is really that person writing t
On 05/23/2013 06:04 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> So, if you want to use this, then you should update the CONFIG_BUG text
> to include a warning to this effect:
>
> Warning: if CONFIG_BUG is turned off, and control flow reaches
> a BUG(), the system behaviour will be undefined.
>
On Thursday 23 May 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> This is the problem you guys are missing - unreachable() means "we lose
> control of the CPU at this point".
I'm absolutely aware of this. Again, the current behaviour of doing nothing
at all isn't very different from undefined behavior wh
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 02:09:02PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 23 May 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > This is the problem you guys are missing - unreachable() means "we lose
> > control of the CPU at this point".
>
> I'm absolutely aware of this. Again, the current behaviou
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 02:09:02PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Thursday 23 May 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> > This is the problem you guys are missing - unreachable() means "we lose
>> > control of the CPU at this
On 05/23/2013 10:10 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> wrote:
>> > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 02:09:02PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> >> On Thursday 23 May 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> > This is the problem you guys are miss
18 matches
Mail list logo
