On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote: > i'll probably ack such a patch, it can be useful even when the line > number is unique: if someone reports a WARN_ON() from an old kernel i > dont have to dig up the exact source but can see it right from the > condition what happened. Useful redundancy in bug output can be quite > useful at times. Please post it and we'll see whether it's acceptable.
OK, thanks, I will send it later today. BTW I still don't see how to distinguish it easily ... for example: WARNING at kernel/mutex.c:132 __mutex_lock_common() [<c0103d70>] dump_trace+0x68/0x1b5 [<c0103ed5>] show_trace_log_lvl+0x18/0x2c [<c010445b>] show_trace+0xf/0x11 [<c01044cd>] dump_stack+0x12/0x14 [<c037523f>] __mutex_lock_slowpath+0xc6/0x261 [<c0199c61>] create_dir+0x24/0x1ba [<c019a30b>] sysfs_create_dir+0x45/0x5f [<c01f302b>] kobject_add+0xd6/0x18d [<c01f31fb>] kobject_register+0x19/0x30 [<c02e771a>] md_probe+0x11a/0x124 [<c0267fa4>] kobj_lookup+0xe6/0x122 [<c01ec12e>] get_gendisk+0xe/0x1b [<c018590e>] do_open+0x2e/0x298 [<c0185d0f>] blkdev_open+0x25/0x4d [<c016451b>] __dentry_open+0xc3/0x17e [<c0164650>] nameidata_to_filp+0x24/0x33 [<c0164691>] do_filp_open+0x32/0x39 [<c01646da>] do_sys_open+0x42/0xbe [<c016478f>] sys_open+0x1c/0x1e [<c0102dbc>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb How can you see immediately which one of the two WARN_ONs in spin_lock_mutex() triggered? -- Jiri Kosina - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
