From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1757314AbdCUPmy (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:42:54 -0400
Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([65.50.211.133]:40741 "EHLO
        bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S932649AbdCUPlh (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:41:37 -0400
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 16:41:22 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Josh Poimboeuf <jpoimboe@redhat.com>
Cc: mingo@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@zytor.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org,
        arjan@linux.intel.com, bp@alien8.de, richard.weinberger@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] x86: Implement __WARN using UD0
Message-ID: <20170321154122.GT5680@worktop>
References: <20170317211918.393791494@infradead.org>
 <20170317212350.828368979@infradead.org>
 <20170321140340.urru2lmjko6txwl5@treble>
 <20170321151446.GV3093@worktop>
 <20170321153252.ssmrumchartuvy5m@treble>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170321153252.ssmrumchartuvy5m@treble>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22.1 (2013-10-16)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 10:32:52AM -0500, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 04:14:46PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > +static int fixup_bug(struct pt_regs *regs, int trapnr)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	if (trapnr != X86_TRAP_UD)
> > > > +		return 0;
> > > > +
> > > > +	switch (report_bug(regs->ip, regs)) {
> > > > +	case BUG_TRAP_TYPE_NONE:
> > > > +	case BUG_TRAP_TYPE_BUG:
> > > > +		break;
> > > > +
> > > > +	case BUG_TRAP_TYPE_WARN:
> > > > +		regs->ip += 2;
> > > > +		return 1;
> > > 
> > > For self-documentation purposes, maybe use a define for the length of
> > > the ud0 instruction?
> > 
> > Well, UD0 and UD2 really. LENGTH_UD0_OR_UD2 is a bit of a fail, name
> > wise.
> 
> Why UD2?  Warnings are UD0-only, no?  What about UD0_LEN?  Or at least a
> comment would be helpful I think.

Oh, right, we only resume on WARN,.. Doh.