Re: [PATCH] 2.4.25: BUG(): Use guard page instead of page 0

From: David Mosberger <>
Date: 2004-03-05 11:05:31
>>>>> On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 16:57:43 -0700, Bjorn Helgaas <> said:

  Bjorn> On Thursday 04 March 2004 4:41 pm, Keith Owens wrote:

  >> Why not use 'break 0' for gcc < 3.1?  No need to worry about
  >> which pages are protected.

  >> switch (break_num) { case 0: /* unknown error (used by GCC for
  >> __builtin_abort()) */ die_if_kernel("bugcheck!", regs,
  >> break_num);

  Bjorn> Sounds reasonable to me, but I'm too chicken.  Propose a
  Bjorn> patch and get David to take it, and I'll put it in 2.4.

I don't think it's worth changing (2.9x is out for 2.6 anyhow, and I
doubt anyone is using GCC 3.0 for real work; if you do, you're
probably in lots of trouble for other reasons!).  Besides, one
disadvantage of using "break 0" is that it will make Ski stop
immediately, which isn't what you want.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Received on Thu Mar 4 19:06:08 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:24 EST