Re: [PATCH] softirq: Be more verbose on t->state BUG()

2021-03-17 Thread Eugeniu Rosca
Hello Thomas, On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 06:13:12PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, Mar 16 2021 at 16:10, Eugeniu Rosca wrote: > > If no other comments in the next days, I will resubmit your proposal as > > v2, marked with 'Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner '. > > > > Alternatively, feel free to

Re: [PATCH] softirq: Be more verbose on t->state BUG()

2021-03-16 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Tue, Mar 16 2021 at 16:10, Eugeniu Rosca wrote: > If no other comments in the next days, I will resubmit your proposal as > v2, marked with 'Suggested-by: Thomas Gleixner '. > > Alternatively, feel free to author the patch and submit it with us in Cc. Just send a v2 please

Re: [PATCH] softirq: Be more verbose on t->state BUG()

2021-03-16 Thread Eugeniu Rosca
Hello Thomas, On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 03:31:50PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, Mar 15 2021 at 16:44, Eugeniu Rosca wrote: > > From: Dirk Behme > > > > In case this BUG() is hit, it helps debugging a lot to get an idea > > what tasklet is the root cause. So, be slightly more verbose here

Re: [PATCH] softirq: Be more verbose on t->state BUG()

2021-03-16 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Mon, Mar 15 2021 at 16:44, Eugeniu Rosca wrote: > From: Dirk Behme > > In case this BUG() is hit, it helps debugging a lot to get an idea > what tasklet is the root cause. So, be slightly more verbose here. > > Signed-off-by: Dirk Behme > Signed-off-by: Eugeniu Rosca > --- > kernel/softirq.c