Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1432456 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH] arc: warn only once if DW2_UNWIND is disabled

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH] arc: warn only once if DW2_UNWIND is disabled Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com> - 2016-06-28 06:40 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] arc: warn only once if DW2_UNWIND is disabled Alexey Brodkin <Alexey.Brodkin@synopsys.com> - 2016-06-28 07:40 +0200

#1432456 — Re: [PATCH] arc: warn only once if DW2_UNWIND is disabled

On Thursday 23 June 2016 01:30 PM, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
> If CONFIG_ARC_DW2_UNWIND is disabled every time arc_unwind_core()
> gets called following message gets printed in debug console:
> ----------------->8---------------
> CONFIG_ARC_DW2_UNWIND needs to be enabled
> ----------------->8---------------
> 
> That message makes sense if user indeed wants to see a backtrace or
> get nice function call-graphs in perf but what if user disabled
> unwinder for the purpose? Why pollute his debug console?
> 
> So instead we'll warn user about possibly missing feature once and
> let him decide if that was what he or she really wanted.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alexey Brodkin <abrodkin@synopsys.com>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org  [3.18+]

Does this really need to be stable backport ?

> ---
>  arch/arc/kernel/stacktrace.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arc/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arc/kernel/stacktrace.c
> index e0efff1..b9192a6 100644
> --- a/arch/arc/kernel/stacktrace.c
> +++ b/arch/arc/kernel/stacktrace.c
> @@ -142,7 +142,7 @@ arc_unwind_core(struct task_struct *tsk, struct pt_regs *regs,
>  	 * prelogue is setup (callee regs saved and then fp set and not other
>  	 * way around
>  	 */
> -	pr_warn("CONFIG_ARC_DW2_UNWIND needs to be enabled\n");
> +	pr_warn_once("CONFIG_ARC_DW2_UNWIND needs to be enabled\n");
>  	return 0;
>  
>  #endif
> 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1432490

Hi Vineet,

On Tue, 2016-06-28 at 10:00 +-0530, Vineet Gupta wrote:
+AD4- On Thursday 23 June 2016 01:30 PM, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
+AD4- +AD4- 
+AD4- +AD4- If CONFIG+AF8-ARC+AF8-DW2+AF8-UNWIND is disabled every time arc+AF8-unwind+AF8-core()
+AD4- +AD4- gets called following message gets printed in debug console:
+AD4- +AD4- -----------------+AD4-8---------------
+AD4- +AD4- CONFIG+AF8-ARC+AF8-DW2+AF8-UNWIND needs to be enabled
+AD4- +AD4- -----------------+AD4-8---------------
+AD4- +AD4- 
+AD4- +AD4- That message makes sense if user indeed wants to see a backtrace or
+AD4- +AD4- get nice function call-graphs in perf but what if user disabled
+AD4- +AD4- unwinder for the purpose? Why pollute his debug console?
+AD4- +AD4- 
+AD4- +AD4- So instead we'll warn user about possibly missing feature once and
+AD4- +AD4- let him decide if that was what he or she really wanted.
+AD4- +AD4- 
+AD4- +AD4- Signed-off-by: Alexey Brodkin +ADw-abrodkin+AEA-synopsys.com+AD4-
+AD4- +AD4- Cc: stable+AEA-vger.kernel.org+AKAAoABb-3.18+-+AF0-
+AD4-
+AD4- Does this really need to be stable backport ?

I think it makes perfect sense for any kernel version because
it saves debug console from being polluted with messages which
most probably have no point (Ok I disabled unwinder in kernel config,
why then spam me with proposals to enable it)?

-Alexey

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web