Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: mm: print hexadecimal EC value in mem_abort_decode() | From | Anshuman Khandual <> | Date | Thu, 8 Aug 2019 11:51:33 +0530 |
| |
On 08/08/2019 11:31 AM, Miles Chen wrote: > On Thu, 2019-08-08 at 11:19 +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >> >> On 08/07/2019 06:03 AM, Miles Chen wrote: >>> This change prints the hexadecimal EC value in mem_abort_decode(), >>> which makes it easier to lookup the corresponding EC in >>> the ARM Architecture Reference Manual. >>> >>> The commit 1f9b8936f36f ("arm64: Decode information from ESR upon mem >>> faults") prints useful information when memory abort occurs. It would >>> be easier to lookup "0x25" instead of "DABT" in the document. Then we >>> can check the corresponding ISS. >>> >>> For example: >>> Current info Document >>> EC Exception class >>> "CP15 MCR/MRC" 0x3 "MCR or MRC access to CP15a..." >>> "ASIMD" 0x7 "Access to SIMD or floating-point..." >>> "DABT (current EL)" 0x25 "Data Abort taken without..." >>> ... >>> >>> Before: >>> Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 000000000000c000 >>> Mem abort info: >>> ESR = 0x96000046 >>> Exception class = DABT (current EL), IL = 32 bits >>> SET = 0, FnV = 0 >>> EA = 0, S1PTW = 0 >>> Data abort info: >>> ISV = 0, ISS = 0x00000046 >>> CM = 0, WnR = 1 >>> >>> After: >>> Unable to handle kernel paging request at virtual address 000000000000c000 >>> Mem abort info: >>> ESR = 0x96000046 >>> EC = 0x25: DABT (current EL), IL = 32 bits >>> SET = 0, FnV = 0 >>> EA = 0, S1PTW = 0 >>> Data abort info: >>> ISV = 0, ISS = 0x00000046 >>> CM = 0, WnR = 1 >>> >>> Change since v1: >>> print "EC" instead of "Exception class" >>> print EC in fixwidth >>> >>> Cc: Mark Rutland <Mark.rutland@arm.com> >>> Cc: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com> >>> Cc: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Miles Chen <miles.chen@mediatek.com> >> >> This version implements the suggestion, hence it should have >> also contained acked-by tag from Mark from earlier version. >> > > No problem. Sorry for not including the tag. > I was not sure if I should add the acked-by tag from Mark in patch v2.
Yeah because V2 has now implemented the suggestion as required for getting the tag per Mark in V1.
> >> Reviewed-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com> > > If I send patch v3, I should include acked-by tag from Mark and > Reviewed-by tag from you, right?
Right.
| |