On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 16:28:07 -0800 > Mandeep Singh Baines <m...@chromium.org> wrote: > >> > Backtraces aren't *that* bad. We'll easily be able to tell which of >> > the two callsites triggered the trace. >> > >> >> Let's say there was a try_to_freeze() that got inlined indirectly >> (multiple levels of inline) into do_exit. Wouldn't the backtraces for >> the regular exit check and the try_to_freeze check be identical except >> for the offset (do_exit+0x45 versus do_exit+0x88)? So unless you had >> an object file you wouldn't know which check you hit. > > Mutter. Spose so. Vaguely possible. Yes, if we want to avoid a > wont-happen, use __FILE__ and __LINE__. Or, probably more sanely, > __func__. >
Fair enough. I'll avoid using a macro unless/until its actually needed. Regards, Mandeep > Or uninline try_to_freeze(). If anything's calling that at high > frequency, we have a problem. And given the number of callsites, > getting it into icache might result in a faster kernel... > > (Someone needs to teach __might_sleep() about __ratelimit()) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
