Re: [RESEND PATCH 1/2] PM / sleep: print function name of callbacks

2016-11-02 Thread Brian Norris
On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 05:27:05AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > Any reason why you need to rely on the initcall_debug stuff instead of using > the tracepoints we have there (for exactly the reason why you are pushing this > patch)? This was mentioned on the last submission. I'll paste Doug's

Re: [RESEND PATCH 1/2] PM / sleep: print function name of callbacks

2016-10-31 Thread Rafael J. Wysocki
On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 05:26:09 PM Brian Norris wrote: > From: Douglas Anderson > > The printouts writen to the logs by suspend can be a bit opaque: it can > be hard to track them down to the actual function called. You might > see: > > calling rfkill1+ @ 19473, parent: phy0 > call

Re: [RESEND PATCH 1/2] PM / sleep: print function name of callbacks

2016-10-19 Thread Dmitry Torokhov
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 05:26:09PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote: > From: Douglas Anderson > > The printouts writen to the logs by suspend can be a bit opaque: it can > be hard to track them down to the actual function called. You might > see: > > calling rfkill1+ @ 19473, parent: phy0 > call

[RESEND PATCH 1/2] PM / sleep: print function name of callbacks

2016-10-19 Thread Brian Norris
From: Douglas Anderson The printouts writen to the logs by suspend can be a bit opaque: it can be hard to track them down to the actual function called. You might see: calling rfkill1+ @ 19473, parent: phy0 call rfkill1+ returned 0 after 1 usecs calling phy0+ @ 19473, parent: mmc2:0001: