On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 12:40:23PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 06:53:41PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > This commit switches RCU suspicious-access splats use pr_err()
> > instead of the current INFO printk()s.  This change makes it easier
> > to automatically classify splats.
> > 
> > Reported-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyu...@google.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > ---
> >  kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 12 ++++++------
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> > index 7c38f8f3d97b..a74c0630172a 100644
> > --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> > +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> > @@ -4412,13 +4412,13 @@ void lockdep_rcu_suspicious(const char *file, const 
> > int line, const char *s)
> >  #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU_REPEATEDLY */
> >     /* Note: the following can be executed concurrently, so be careful. */
> >     printk("\n");
> > -   printk("===============================\n");
> > -   printk("[ INFO: suspicious RCU usage. ]\n");
> > +   pr_err("===============================\n");
> > +   pr_err("[  suspicious RCU usage.      ]\n");
> 
> While re-adding the square bracket makes it symmetric, this change still
> seems odd, and unrelated to the switch to pr_err.  You could change it
> to "ERR:" if you want, if "INFO:" feels inaccurate to you.

So this would be OK?

        pr_err("[ ERR: suspicious RCU usage.  ]\n");

(Changed to this as a best guess, but please let me know.)

                                                        Thanx, Paul

> >     print_kernel_ident();
> > -   printk("-------------------------------\n");
> > -   printk("%s:%d %s!\n", file, line, s);
> > -   printk("\nother info that might help us debug this:\n\n");
> > -   printk("\n%srcu_scheduler_active = %d, debug_locks = %d\n",
> > +   pr_err("-------------------------------\n");
> > +   pr_err("%s:%d %s!\n", file, line, s);
> > +   pr_err("\nother info that might help us debug this:\n\n");
> > +   pr_err("\n%srcu_scheduler_active = %d, debug_locks = %d\n",
> >            !rcu_lockdep_current_cpu_online()
> >                     ? "RCU used illegally from offline CPU!\n"
> >                     : !rcu_is_watching()
> > -- 
> > 2.5.2
> > 
> 

Reply via email to