Re: [PATCH 17/30] tracing: Improve panic/die notifiers
From: "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@igalia.com>
Date: 2022-04-29 13:47:36
Also in:
kexec, linux-alpha, linux-edac, linux-hyperv, linux-leds, linux-mips, linux-pm, linux-remoteproc, linux-s390, linux-tegra, linux-um, lkml, netdev, rcu, sparclinux, xen-devel
On 29/04/2022 10:23, Steven Rostedt wrote:
On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 12:22:44 +0300 Sergei Shtylyov [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
quoted
+ switch (ev) { + case DIE_OOPS: + do_dump = 1; + break; + case PANIC_NOTIFIER: + do_dump = 1; + break;Why not: case DIE_OOPS: case PANIC_NOTIFIER: do_dump = 1; break;Agreed. Other than that. Acked-by: Steven Rostedt (Google) <rostedt@goodmis.org> -- Steve
Thanks Sergei and Steven, good idea! I thought about the switch change you propose, but I confess I got a bit confused by the "fallthrough" keyword - do I need to use it? About the s/int/bool, for sure! Not sure why I didn't use bool at first...heheh Cheers, Guilherme