Dave Jones wrote:
quoted text
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 01:03:50AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
>  > >  #ifndef HAVE_ARCH_BUG
>  > >  #define BUG() do { \
>  > > -	printk("BUG: failure at %s:%d/%s()!\n", __FILE__, __LINE__, __FUNCTION__); \
>  > > +	printk(KERN_ERR "BUG: failure at %s:%d/%s()! (%s)\n",
>  > > +		__FILE__, __LINE__, __FUNCTION__, print_tainted()); \
>  > >  	panic("BUG!"); \
>  > >  } while (0)
>  > >  #endif
>  > >...
>  > 
>  > Note that this only changes a handful of architectures and most likely 
>  > not the ones you are interested in.
>
> Hmm, it appears that I was mistaken, and we never did patch x86.
> Which leaves me wondering if its worth it or not to  patch BUG()
> Anyways, here's the latest rev with the out-of-line changes as
> suggested by Andi.
>
> init/main.c may not be the best place for the ool variant. suggestions?
>   

lib/bug.c would be the place for architectures using
CONFIG_GENERIC_BUG.  x86 could be converted to use the BUG-trapping
mechanism for WARN_ON like Power does, so it would be inherently out of
line anyway.

    J
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/