Re: [PATCH] arm64: define BUG() instruction without CONFIG_BUG

From	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [PATCH] arm64: define BUG() instruction without CONFIG_BUG
Date	2017-02-15 12:40 +0100
Message-ID	<tb66d-7Lf-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<taT90-79j-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <tb5Wy-7HU-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 10:39:28PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> @@ -57,6 +58,14 @@ _BUGVERBOSE_LOCATION(__FILE__, __LINE__)           \
>>
>>  #define __WARN_TAINT(taint) _BUG_FLAGS(BUGFLAG_TAINT(taint))
>>
>> +#else
>> +
>> +#define BUG() do {                                   \
>> +     asm volatile("brk %[imm]"                       \
>> +                  :: [imm] "i" (BUG_BRK_IMM));       \
>> +     unreachable();                                  \
>> +} while (0)
>
> Do we need to duplicate the asm, or can we reuse the existing BUG
> definition in this header? The only extra thing we do is push a __bug_table
> entry, but I can't see why that would be a problem.

The only reason for turning off CONFIG_BUG is to save a little extra space
in the kernel image, so I think we really don't want the __bug_table to be
generated.

However, we could split the existing asm in two and have only one definition
for the asm containing the brk instruction.

     Arnd

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

[PATCH] arm64: define BUG() instruction without CONFIG_BUG Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2017-02-14 22:50 +0100
  Re: [PATCH] arm64: define BUG() instruction without CONFIG_BUG Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2017-02-15 12:30 +0100
    Re: [PATCH] arm64: define BUG() instruction without CONFIG_BUG Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2017-02-15 12:40 +0100

csiph-web