On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 03:02:38 +0000
Daniel Thompson <daniel.thomp...@linaro.org> wrote:
> > diff --git a/kernel/trace/trace_kdb.c b/kernel/trace/trace_kdb.c
> > index 4b666643d69f..996e1e9cd9a6 100644
> > --- a/kernel/trace/trace_kdb.c
> > +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_kdb.c
> > @@ -39,7 +39,8 @@ static void ftrace_dump_buf(int skip_entries, long
> > cpu_file)
> > /* don't look at user memory in panic mode */
> > tr->trace_flags &= ~TRACE_ITER_SYM_USEROBJ;
> >
> > - kdb_printf("Dumping ftrace buffer:\n");
> > + kdb_printf("Dumping ftrace buffer (skipping %d entries):\n",
> > + skip_entries);
>
> If someone *doesn't* need to skip any entries I'm not a fan of telling
> them we are "skipping 0 entries"; it is more unnerving than helpful
> ("huh? what does it need to tell me that no entried were skipped?
> what makes the tracer skip entries?... Doh... I get it").
I agree.
Probably best to have this:
kdb_printf("Dumping ftrace buffer:\n");
if (skip_entries)
kdb_printf("(skipping %d entries)\n", skip_entries);
No reason to inject that skipping line in the first line.
-- Steve
_______________________________________________
Kgdb-bugreport mailing list
Kgdb-bugreport@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kgdb-bugreport
