Re: [PATCH 17/30] tracing: Improve panic/die notifiers

2022-05-17 Thread Guilherme G. Piccoli
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

Re: [PATCH 17/30] tracing: Improve panic/die notifiers

2022-05-11 Thread Petr Mladek
On Wed 2022-04-27 19:49:11, 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. > > I

Re: [PATCH 17/30] tracing: Improve panic/die notifiers

2022-04-30 Thread Sergei Shtylyov
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. > >

Re: [PATCH 17/30] tracing: Improve panic/die notifiers

2022-04-29 Thread Guilherme G. Piccoli
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;

Re: [PATCH 17/30] tracing: Improve panic/die notifiers

2022-04-29 Thread Steven Rostedt
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'

Re: [PATCH 17/30] tracing: Improve panic/die notifiers

2022-04-29 Thread Guilherme G. Piccoli
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

Re: [PATCH 17/30] tracing: Improve panic/die notifiers

2022-04-29 Thread Steven Rostedt
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

[PATCH 17/30] tracing: Improve panic/die notifiers

2022-04-27 Thread Guilherme G. Piccoli
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. It also comments the function and changes the priority of the notifie