Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] x86/traps: Print non-canonical address on #GP

[Borislav Petkov]

On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 12:18:59PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> How was this maximum string length of '90' derived? In what way will
> that have to change if someone changes the message?

That was me counting the string length in a dirty patch in a previous
thread. We probably should say why we decided for a certain length and
maybe have a define for it.

Also, I could use your opinion on this here:

https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20191118164407.GH6363@xxxxxxx

and the following mail.

I think that marking the splat with its number would *immensely* help us
with the question: was this the first splat or wasn't? A question we've
been asking since I got involved in kernel development. :)

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette