On Sat 2007-11-17 20:42:40, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 11:35:01AM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:46:52 -0800
> > Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > by ... not too much at least, gcc ought to be quite good at merging
> > > > same-strin
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 16:57:19 -0800
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Should be done for all architectures, methinks.
>
> If so, an appropriate way to do that would be to do
> s/dump_stack/arch_dump_stack/ and do a single all-arch implementation
> of dump_stack(). (Where we might add
* Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Should be done for all architectures, methinks.
>
> If so, an appropriate way to do that would be to do
> s/dump_stack/arch_dump_stack/ and do a single all-arch implementation
> of dump_stack(). (Where we might add new goodies in the future).
i ag
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 01:42:18 +0100 Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > ok so how about putting the same into dump_stack() instead? (see
> > below) added bonus is that it's now present for all dumps that use
> > dump_stack(), not just W
* Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ok so how about putting the same into dump_stack() instead? (see
> below) added bonus is that it's now present for all dumps that use
> dump_stack(), not just WARN_ON() (the format I copied from the exact
> line used by oopses)
nice! I did thing
On Saturday 17 November 2007 10:15, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> Hi,
>
> #define WARN_ON(condition) ({
> \
> int __ret_warn_on = !!(condition); \
> if (unlikely(__ret_warn_on)) {
On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 11:35:01AM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:46:52 -0800
> Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > by ... not too much at least, gcc ought to be quite good at merging
> > > same-strings into one, so it's just one extra pointer argument
> > >
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:46:52 -0800
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > by ... not too much at least, gcc ought to be quite good at merging
> > same-strings into one, so it's just one extra pointer argument
> >
>
> I think I knew that. At 1000 callsites.
ok so how about putting the sam
On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 10:15:52AM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> Hi,
>
> today, all oopses contain a version number of the kernel, which is nice
> because the people who actually do bother to read the oops get this
> vital bit of information always without having to ask the reporter in
> anothe
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:39:47 -0800 Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:27:20 -0800
> Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:15:52 -0800 Arjan van de Ven
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > @@ -35,8 +36,8 @@ struct bug_entry {
>
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:27:20 -0800
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:15:52 -0800 Arjan van de Ven
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > @@ -35,8 +36,8 @@ struct bug_entry {
> > #define WARN_ON(condition)
> > ({ \ int
> > __ret
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:15:52 -0800 Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> @@ -35,8 +36,8 @@ struct bug_entry {
> #define WARN_ON(condition) ({
> \
> int __ret_warn_on = !!(condition); \
> if (unlikely(
Hi,
today, all oopses contain a version number of the kernel, which is nice
because the people who actually do bother to read the oops get this
vital bit of information always without having to ask the reporter in
another round trip.
However, WARN_ON() right now lacks this information; the patch
13 matches
Mail list logo
