On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:28 PM Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> "read" isn't an actual bit in the error code, so I thought it would be
> polite to make it look a little bit different.
If you care about the bits in the error code, then just look at the number.
And if you care about what the numbers
On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:28 PM Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> "read" isn't an actual bit in the error code, so I thought it would be
> polite to make it look a little bit different.
If you care about the bits in the error code, then just look at the number.
And if you care about what the numbers
On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:24 PM Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 11:07 AM Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >
> > How do you like the attached patch?
>
> I agree with whoever thought it's odd that "read" is in lower case
> when everything else is in upper case.
"read" isn't an actual bit
On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 12:24 PM Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 11:07 AM Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >
> > How do you like the attached patch?
>
> I agree with whoever thought it's odd that "read" is in lower case
> when everything else is in upper case.
"read" isn't an actual bit
On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 11:07 AM Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> How do you like the attached patch?
I agree with whoever thought it's odd that "read" is in lower case
when everything else is in upper case.
And honestly, I'd just siggest making the err_text simply have the
real user/kernel difference
On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 11:07 AM Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
> How do you like the attached patch?
I agree with whoever thought it's odd that "read" is in lower case
when everything else is in upper case.
And honestly, I'd just siggest making the err_text simply have the
real user/kernel difference
On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 10:15 AM Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:34 PM Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, so I don't like the overly long 'SUPERVISOR' and the somewhat
> > inconsistent, sporadic handling of negatives. Here's our error code bits:
> >
> > /*
> > * Page fault
On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 10:15 AM Linus Torvalds
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:34 PM Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, so I don't like the overly long 'SUPERVISOR' and the somewhat
> > inconsistent, sporadic handling of negatives. Here's our error code bits:
> >
> > /*
> > * Page fault
On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:34 PM Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> Yeah, so I don't like the overly long 'SUPERVISOR' and the somewhat
> inconsistent, sporadic handling of negatives. Here's our error code bits:
>
> /*
> * Page fault error code bits:
> *
> * bit 0 ==0: no page found 1:
On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 11:34 PM Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> Yeah, so I don't like the overly long 'SUPERVISOR' and the somewhat
> inconsistent, sporadic handling of negatives. Here's our error code bits:
>
> /*
> * Page fault error code bits:
> *
> * bit 0 ==0: no page found 1:
* Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> That’s why I suggested “read,” in lowercase, for reads. Other than
> that, most of the unset bits are uninteresting. An OOPS is so likely to
> be a kernel fault that it’s barely worth mentioning, and I even added a
> whole separate diagnostic for user oopses.
* Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> That’s why I suggested “read,” in lowercase, for reads. Other than
> that, most of the unset bits are uninteresting. An OOPS is so likely to
> be a kernel fault that it’s barely worth mentioning, and I even added a
> whole separate diagnostic for user oopses.
> On Dec 6, 2018, at 8:47 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
>
> * Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>>> vs. (with SGX added as 'G' for testing purposes)
>>>
>>> [0.158849] #PF error code(0001): +P !W !U !S !I !K !G
>>> [0.159292] #PF error code(0003): +P +W !U !S !I !K !G
>>> [0.159742] #PF
> On Dec 6, 2018, at 8:47 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
>
> * Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>>> vs. (with SGX added as 'G' for testing purposes)
>>>
>>> [0.158849] #PF error code(0001): +P !W !U !S !I !K !G
>>> [0.159292] #PF error code(0003): +P +W !U !S !I !K !G
>>> [0.159742] #PF
* Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > vs. (with SGX added as 'G' for testing purposes)
> >
> > [0.158849] #PF error code(0001): +P !W !U !S !I !K !G
> > [0.159292] #PF error code(0003): +P +W !U !S !I !K !G
> > [0.159742] #PF error code(0007): +P +W +U !S !I !K !G
> > [0.160190] #PF
* Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > vs. (with SGX added as 'G' for testing purposes)
> >
> > [0.158849] #PF error code(0001): +P !W !U !S !I !K !G
> > [0.159292] #PF error code(0003): +P +W !U !S !I !K !G
> > [0.159742] #PF error code(0007): +P +W +U !S !I !K !G
> > [0.160190] #PF
> On Dec 6, 2018, at 7:53 AM, Sean Christopherson
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 08:34:09AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> I like your '!' idea, but with a further simplification: how about using
>> '-/+' differentiation and a single character and a fixed-length message.
>>
>> The
> On Dec 6, 2018, at 7:53 AM, Sean Christopherson
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 08:34:09AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> I like your '!' idea, but with a further simplification: how about using
>> '-/+' differentiation and a single character and a fixed-length message.
>>
>> The
* Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 08:34:09AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > I like your '!' idea, but with a further simplification: how about using
> > '-/+' differentiation and a single character and a fixed-length message.
> >
> > The new output will be lines of:
> >
* Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 08:34:09AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > I like your '!' idea, but with a further simplification: how about using
> > '-/+' differentiation and a single character and a fixed-length message.
> >
> > The new output will be lines of:
> >
On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 08:34:09AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> I like your '!' idea, but with a further simplification: how about using
> '-/+' differentiation and a single character and a fixed-length message.
>
> The new output will be lines of:
>
> #PF error code: -P -W -U -S -I -K (0x00)
On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 08:34:09AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> I like your '!' idea, but with a further simplification: how about using
> '-/+' differentiation and a single character and a fixed-length message.
>
> The new output will be lines of:
>
> #PF error code: -P -W -U -S -I -K (0x00)
* Sean Christopherson wrote:
> ...instead of manually handling the case where error_code=0, e.g. to
> display "[SUPERVISOR] [READ]" instead of "normal kernel read fault".
>
> This makes the zero case consistent with all other messages and also
> provides additional information for other error
* Sean Christopherson wrote:
> ...instead of manually handling the case where error_code=0, e.g. to
> display "[SUPERVISOR] [READ]" instead of "normal kernel read fault".
>
> This makes the zero case consistent with all other messages and also
> provides additional information for other error
24 matches
Mail list logo
