On Fri, 2018-05-11 at 11:23 +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (05/11/18 10:51), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > In general, the idea looks OK to me, so FWIW > > Acked-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhat...@gmail.com> > > Looking at dmesg, > > Base: > [ 0.000000] KERNEL supported cpus: > [ 0.000000] Intel GenuineIntel > [...] > [ 0.000000] 00000-9FFFF write-back > [ 0.000000] A0000-BFFFF uncachable > [ 0.000000] C0000-FFFFF write-protect > [ 0.000000] MTRR variable ranges enabled: > [ 0.000000] 0 base 00E0000000 mask 7FE0000000 uncachable > [ 0.000000] 1 disabled > [ 0.000000] 2 disabled > [ 0.000000] 3 disabled > [ 0.000000] 4 disabled > [..] > > Patched: > [ 0.000000] common: KERNEL supported cpus: > [ 0.000000] common: Intel GenuineIntel > [...] > [ 0.000000] generic: MTRR default type: write-back > [ 0.000000] generic: MTRR fixed ranges enabled: > [ 0.000000] generic: 00000-9FFFF write-back > [ 0.000000] generic: A0000-BFFFF uncachable > [ 0.000000] generic: C0000-FFFFF write-protect > [ 0.000000] generic: MTRR variable ranges enabled: > [ 0.000000] generic: 0 base 00E0000000 mask 7FE0000000 uncachable > [ 0.000000] generic: 1 disabled > [ 0.000000] generic: 2 disabled > [ 0.000000] generic: 3 disabled > [ 0.000000] generic: 4 disabled > [..] > > Is it correct that WARN_ON() from "generic: " will now also be prefixed? > In other words, we will have something like this > > [ 28.420519] generic: RSP: 0018:ffffa01dc062bda8 EFLAGS: 00010282 > [ 28.420522] generic: RAX: ffffffff8317612f RBX: ffffffffffffffea RCX: > ffffa01dc062bdc8 > [ 28.420523] generic: RDX: 000055a6a3f03110 RSI: 0000000000000001 RDI: > ffffffff83e31540 > [ 28.420525] generic: RBP: 0000000000000001 R08: ffffa01dc062bec0 R09: > 0000000000000004 > [ 28.420526] generic: R10: 0000000000000001 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: > 0000000000000001 > [ 28.420528] generic: R13: ffffffff83e31540 R14: ffffa01dc062bec0 R15: > 0000000000000002 > [ 28.420547] generic: ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x5d/0x63 > [ 28.420549] generic: ? rcu_sync_lockdep_assert+0x2e/0x54 > [ 28.420551] generic: ? __sb_start_write+0xeb/0x1a3 > > Correct?
No, that stack dump comes from arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack.c and that uses printk(KERN_DEFAULT ... and generic printk( which is not prefixed at all. And it's likely that there should be more files, if the desired output is not prefixed, that should add #define pr_fmt(fmt) fmt to remove prefixes like "generic: "
