Re: [PATCH] let WARN_ON() output the condition

[Jaswinder Singh]

Hi,

I am playing with linux kernel but kernel dumps on WARN_ON , when I
commented WARN_ON in my code my kernel starts working but I get two
sideeffects :-

1. During Boot kernel Hangs sometimes in :-
Updating /etc/motd...done.
INIT: Entering runlevel: 3
<<hangs>>

2. Always Hangs in :-
cat /proc/interrupts
after showing interrupts
<<hangs>>

Are these side-effects of commenting WARN_ON.

Sometimes I also gets :-

<1>Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 00000004
Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at virtual address 00000004
<1>pgd = c5810000
pgd = c5810000
<1>[00000004] *pgd=85844031[00000004] *pgd=85844031, *pte=00000000,
*pte=00000000, *ppte=00000000, *ppte=00000000

Internal error: Oops: 17 [#1]
Internal error: Oops: 17 [#1]
Modules linked in:Modules linked in:

CPU: 0
CPU: 0
PC is at dequeue_task+0xc/0x78
PC is at dequeue_task+0xc/0x78
LR is at deactivate_task+0x24/0x30
LR is at deactivate_task+0x24/0x30
pc : [<c0037264>]    lr : [<c003759c>]    Not tainted
sp : c545ddcc  ip : c545dddc  fp : c545ddd8
pc : [<c0037264>]    lr : [<c003759c>]    Not tainted
sp : c545ddcc  ip : c545dddc  fp : c545ddd8
r10: c68fd340  r9 : c02e04d4  r8 : c028ccf8
r10: c68fd340  r9 : c02e04d4  r8 : c028ccf8
r7 : c028ded8  r6 : c028ccf4  r5 : c545c000  r4 : c68fd340
r7 : c028ded8  r6 : c028ccf4  r5 : c545c000  r4 : c68fd340
r3 : 00000002  r2 : 00000000  r1 : 00000000  r0 : c68fd340
r3 : 00000002  r2 : 00000000  r1 : 00000000  r0 : c68fd340
Flags: NzcvFlags: Nzcv  IRQs on  FIQs on  Mode SVC_32  Segment user
 IRQs on  FIQs on  Mode SVC_32  Segment user
Control: 5317F  Table: 85810000  DAC: 00000015
Control: 5317F  Table: 85810000  DAC: 00000015
Process X (pid: 1107, stack limit = 0xc545c198)
Process X (pid: 1107, stack limit = 0xc545c198)
Stack: (0xc545ddcc to 0xc545e000)
Stack: (0xc545ddcc to 0xc545e000)

How to get rid of dequeue_task issue.

Thanks

Jaswinder Singh.

On 12/6/06, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> * Horst H. von Brand <vonbrand@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Why not just:
> >
> >     WARN_ON(debug_locks_off())
> >
> > here? Would give a more readable message too, IMHO.
>
> debug_locks_off() has a side-effect, and in general we dont like to put
> stuff with side-effects witin WARN_ON().
>
>        Ingo
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/