On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 07:54:07PM +0800, Guohua Zhong wrote:
> >> Yet, I have noticed that there is no checking of 'base' in these functions.
> >> But I am not sure how to check is better.As we know that the result is
> >> undefined when divisor is zero. It maybe good to print error and dump
> >
From: Guohua Zhong
> Sent: 24 August 2020 14:26
>
> >> >In generic version in lib/math/div64.c, there is no checking of 'base'
> >> >either.
> >> >Do we really want to add this check in the powerpc version only ?
> >>
> >> >The only user of __div64_32() is do_div() in
> >> >include/asm-generic/div
>> >In generic version in lib/math/div64.c, there is no checking of 'base'
>> >either.
>> >Do we really want to add this check in the powerpc version only ?
>>
>> >The only user of __div64_32() is do_div() in
>> >include/asm-generic/div64.h. Wouldn't it be better to do the check there ?
>>
>> >
>> Yet, I have noticed that there is no checking of 'base' in these functions.
>> But I am not sure how to check is better.As we know that the result is
>> undefined when divisor is zero. It maybe good to print error and dump stack.
>> Let the process to know that the divisor is zero by sending S
On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 12:54:33AM +0800, Guohua Zhong wrote:
> Yet, I have noticed that there is no checking of 'base' in these functions.
> But I am not sure how to check is better.As we know that the result is
> undefined when divisor is zero. It maybe good to print error and dump stack.
> Let
On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 12:54:33AM +0800, Guohua Zhong wrote:
> >In generic version in lib/math/div64.c, there is no checking of 'base'
> >either.
> >Do we really want to add this check in the powerpc version only ?
>
> >The only user of __div64_32() is do_div() in
> >include/asm-generic/div64.h
>In generic version in lib/math/div64.c, there is no checking of 'base'
>either.
>Do we really want to add this check in the powerpc version only ?
>The only user of __div64_32() is do_div() in
>include/asm-generic/div64.h. Wouldn't it be better to do the check there ?
>Christophe
Yet, I have
>> When cat /proc/pid/stat, do_task_stat will call into cputime_adjust,
>> which call stack is like this:
>>
>> [17179954.674326]BookE Watchdog detected hard LOCKUP on cpu 0
>> [17179954.674331]dCPU: 0 PID: 1262 Comm: TICK Tainted: PW O
>> 4.4.176 #1
>> [17179954.674339]dtask: dc9d704
>> When cat /proc/pid/stat, do_task_stat will call into cputime_adjust,
>> which call stack is like this:
>>
>> [17179954.674326]BookE Watchdog detected hard LOCKUP on cpu 0
>> [17179954.674331]dCPU: 0 PID: 1262 Comm: TICK Tainted: PW O
>> 4.4.176 #1
>> [17179954.674339]dtask: dc9d704
Le 20/08/2020 à 15:10, Guohua Zhong a écrit :
When cat /proc/pid/stat, do_task_stat will call into cputime_adjust,
which call stack is like this:
[17179954.674326]BookE Watchdog detected hard LOCKUP on cpu 0
[17179954.674331]dCPU: 0 PID: 1262 Comm: TICK Tainted: PW O4.4.176
#1
[
Le 20/08/2020 à 15:10, Guohua Zhong a écrit :
When cat /proc/pid/stat, do_task_stat will call into cputime_adjust,
which call stack is like this:
[17179954.674326]BookE Watchdog detected hard LOCKUP on cpu 0
[17179954.674331]dCPU: 0 PID: 1262 Comm: TICK Tainted: PW O4.4.176
#1
[
When cat /proc/pid/stat, do_task_stat will call into cputime_adjust,
which call stack is like this:
[17179954.674326]BookE Watchdog detected hard LOCKUP on cpu 0
[17179954.674331]dCPU: 0 PID: 1262 Comm: TICK Tainted: PW O4.4.176
#1
[17179954.674339]dtask: dc9d7040 task.stack: d3cb400
12 matches
Mail list logo
