Messages in this thread | | | From | Dmitry Vyukov <> | Date | Thu, 21 Jun 2018 09:59:05 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] arch/x86: get rid of KERN_CONT in show_fault_oops() |
| |
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 3:06 AM, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 3:55 PM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@gmail.com> wrote: >> From: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> >> >> KERN_CONT leads to split lines in kernel output >> and complicates useful changes to printk like >> printing context before each line. >> >> Only acceptable use of continuations is basically >> boot-time testing. >> >> Get rid of it. > >> + printk(KERN_ALERT "BUG: unable to handle kernel %s at %px\n", >> + (address < PAGE_SIZE ? "NULL pointer dereference" : >> + "paging request"), (void *) address); > > Perhaps pr_alert() ?
It's the same, right? Make sense.
> Btw, parens are redundant for the first argument. > > P.S. And personally I would rather do > if (address < PAGE_SIZE) > pr_alert(...NULL pointer dereference...); > else > pr_alert(...paging request...);
It's kinda shorter this way. Any other opinions?
pr_alert("BUG: unable to handle kernel %s at %px\n", address < PAGE_SIZE ? "NULL pointer dereference" : "paging request", (void *) address);
vs:
if (address < PAGE_SIZE) pr_alert("BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at %px\n", (void *) address); else pr_alert("BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at %px\n", (void *) address);
Or, should we just do:
pr_alert("BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at %px\n", (void *) address);
and not try to be too smart here? In the end, that can be a NULL deref with 5K offset, right?
| |