Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 17:05:08 -0500 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> Cc: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@mckusick.com>, Christoph Mallon <christoph.mallon@gmx.de>, Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Proposal: Unify printing the function name in panic messages() Message-ID: <201302111705.08350.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-Vmokt%2Byq7WMpW0S5Kzy7y1EFGU6g6pHt=QuoZ-zs%2BG-U0BQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <51141E33.4080103@gmx.de> <201302111203.19422.jhb@freebsd.org> <CAJ-Vmokt%2Byq7WMpW0S5Kzy7y1EFGU6g6pHt=QuoZ-zs%2BG-U0BQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday, February 11, 2013 4:20:00 pm Adrian Chadd wrote: > Whoa, whoa. > > Are you seriously trying to argue that having a consistent file:line > isn't a really helpful addition to panic messages? > > Yes, you can get it via the crash IP and use of binutils on the kernel > image. But with modules? You have to fire up kgdb, and that requires a > dump _and_ a kgdb that matches the kernel image in question. > > Even if you don't add it to the panic message, having that information > passed into panic() so it can print out a file:line would be great. He isn't adding that, he's adding __func__, and it isn't a fool proof replacement. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201302111705.08350.jhb>