All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH] arc: warn only once if DW2_UNWIND is disabled
@ 2016-06-23  8:00 ` Alexey Brodkin
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Alexey Brodkin @ 2016-06-23  8:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-snps-arc; +Cc: linux-kernel, Alexey Brodkin, stable, [3.18+]

If CONFIG_ARC_DW2_UNWIND is disabled every time arc_unwind_core()
gets called following message gets printed in debug console:
----------------->8---------------
CONFIG_ARC_DW2_UNWIND needs to be enabled
----------------->8---------------

That message makes sense if user indeed wants to see a backtrace or
get nice function call-graphs in perf but what if user disabled
unwinder for the purpose? Why pollute his debug console?

So instead we'll warn user about possibly missing feature once and
let him decide if that was what he or she really wanted.

Signed-off-by: Alexey Brodkin <abrodkin@synopsys.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org  [3.18+]
---
 arch/arc/kernel/stacktrace.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/arc/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arc/kernel/stacktrace.c
index e0efff1..b9192a6 100644
--- a/arch/arc/kernel/stacktrace.c
+++ b/arch/arc/kernel/stacktrace.c
@@ -142,7 +142,7 @@ arc_unwind_core(struct task_struct *tsk, struct pt_regs *regs,
 	 * prelogue is setup (callee regs saved and then fp set and not other
 	 * way around
 	 */
-	pr_warn("CONFIG_ARC_DW2_UNWIND needs to be enabled\n");
+	pr_warn_once("CONFIG_ARC_DW2_UNWIND needs to be enabled\n");
 	return 0;
 
 #endif
-- 
2.5.5

^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* [PATCH] arc: warn only once if DW2_UNWIND is disabled
@ 2016-06-23  8:00 ` Alexey Brodkin
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Alexey Brodkin @ 2016-06-23  8:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-snps-arc

If CONFIG_ARC_DW2_UNWIND is disabled every time arc_unwind_core()
gets called following message gets printed in debug console:
----------------->8---------------
CONFIG_ARC_DW2_UNWIND needs to be enabled
----------------->8---------------

That message makes sense if user indeed wants to see a backtrace or
get nice function call-graphs in perf but what if user disabled
unwinder for the purpose? Why pollute his debug console?

So instead we'll warn user about possibly missing feature once and
let him decide if that was what he or she really wanted.

Signed-off-by: Alexey Brodkin <abrodkin at synopsys.com>
Cc: stable at vger.kernel.org  [3.18+]
---
 arch/arc/kernel/stacktrace.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/arc/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arc/kernel/stacktrace.c
index e0efff1..b9192a6 100644
--- a/arch/arc/kernel/stacktrace.c
+++ b/arch/arc/kernel/stacktrace.c
@@ -142,7 +142,7 @@ arc_unwind_core(struct task_struct *tsk, struct pt_regs *regs,
 	 * prelogue is setup (callee regs saved and then fp set and not other
 	 * way around
 	 */
-	pr_warn("CONFIG_ARC_DW2_UNWIND needs to be enabled\n");
+	pr_warn_once("CONFIG_ARC_DW2_UNWIND needs to be enabled\n");
 	return 0;
 
 #endif
-- 
2.5.5

^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] arc: warn only once if DW2_UNWIND is disabled
  2016-06-23  8:00 ` Alexey Brodkin
@ 2016-06-28  4:30   ` Vineet Gupta
  -1 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Vineet Gupta @ 2016-06-28  4:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Alexey Brodkin, linux-snps-arc; +Cc: linux-kernel, stable, [3.18+]

On Thursday 23 June 2016 01:30 PM, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
> If CONFIG_ARC_DW2_UNWIND is disabled every time arc_unwind_core()
> gets called following message gets printed in debug console:
> ----------------->8---------------
> CONFIG_ARC_DW2_UNWIND needs to be enabled
> ----------------->8---------------
> 
> That message makes sense if user indeed wants to see a backtrace or
> get nice function call-graphs in perf but what if user disabled
> unwinder for the purpose? Why pollute his debug console?
> 
> So instead we'll warn user about possibly missing feature once and
> let him decide if that was what he or she really wanted.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alexey Brodkin <abrodkin@synopsys.com>
> Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org  [3.18+]

Does this really need to be stable backport ?

> ---
>  arch/arc/kernel/stacktrace.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arc/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arc/kernel/stacktrace.c
> index e0efff1..b9192a6 100644
> --- a/arch/arc/kernel/stacktrace.c
> +++ b/arch/arc/kernel/stacktrace.c
> @@ -142,7 +142,7 @@ arc_unwind_core(struct task_struct *tsk, struct pt_regs *regs,
>  	 * prelogue is setup (callee regs saved and then fp set and not other
>  	 * way around
>  	 */
> -	pr_warn("CONFIG_ARC_DW2_UNWIND needs to be enabled\n");
> +	pr_warn_once("CONFIG_ARC_DW2_UNWIND needs to be enabled\n");
>  	return 0;
>  
>  #endif
> 

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* [PATCH] arc: warn only once if DW2_UNWIND is disabled
@ 2016-06-28  4:30   ` Vineet Gupta
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Vineet Gupta @ 2016-06-28  4:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-snps-arc

On Thursday 23 June 2016 01:30 PM, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
> If CONFIG_ARC_DW2_UNWIND is disabled every time arc_unwind_core()
> gets called following message gets printed in debug console:
> ----------------->8---------------
> CONFIG_ARC_DW2_UNWIND needs to be enabled
> ----------------->8---------------
> 
> That message makes sense if user indeed wants to see a backtrace or
> get nice function call-graphs in perf but what if user disabled
> unwinder for the purpose? Why pollute his debug console?
> 
> So instead we'll warn user about possibly missing feature once and
> let him decide if that was what he or she really wanted.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alexey Brodkin <abrodkin at synopsys.com>
> Cc: stable at vger.kernel.org  [3.18+]

Does this really need to be stable backport ?

> ---
>  arch/arc/kernel/stacktrace.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arc/kernel/stacktrace.c b/arch/arc/kernel/stacktrace.c
> index e0efff1..b9192a6 100644
> --- a/arch/arc/kernel/stacktrace.c
> +++ b/arch/arc/kernel/stacktrace.c
> @@ -142,7 +142,7 @@ arc_unwind_core(struct task_struct *tsk, struct pt_regs *regs,
>  	 * prelogue is setup (callee regs saved and then fp set and not other
>  	 * way around
>  	 */
> -	pr_warn("CONFIG_ARC_DW2_UNWIND needs to be enabled\n");
> +	pr_warn_once("CONFIG_ARC_DW2_UNWIND needs to be enabled\n");
>  	return 0;
>  
>  #endif
> 

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] arc: warn only once if DW2_UNWIND is disabled
  2016-06-28  4:30   ` Vineet Gupta
  (?)
@ 2016-06-28  5:38     ` Alexey Brodkin
  -1 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Alexey Brodkin @ 2016-06-28  5:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Vineet Gupta; +Cc: linux-kernel, stable, linux-snps-arc

Hi Vineet,

On Tue, 2016-06-28 at 10:00 +0530, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> On Thursday 23 June 2016 01:30 PM, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
> > 
> > If CONFIG_ARC_DW2_UNWIND is disabled every time arc_unwind_core()
> > gets called following message gets printed in debug console:
> > ----------------->8---------------
> > CONFIG_ARC_DW2_UNWIND needs to be enabled
> > ----------------->8---------------
> > 
> > That message makes sense if user indeed wants to see a backtrace or
> > get nice function call-graphs in perf but what if user disabled
> > unwinder for the purpose? Why pollute his debug console?
> > 
> > So instead we'll warn user about possibly missing feature once and
> > let him decide if that was what he or she really wanted.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Alexey Brodkin <abrodkin@synopsys.com>
> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org  [3.18+]
>
> Does this really need to be stable backport ?

I think it makes perfect sense for any kernel version because
it saves debug console from being polluted with messages which
most probably have no point (Ok I disabled unwinder in kernel config,
why then spam me with proposals to enable it)?

-Alexey

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH] arc: warn only once if DW2_UNWIND is disabled
@ 2016-06-28  5:38     ` Alexey Brodkin
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Alexey Brodkin @ 2016-06-28  5:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Vineet Gupta; +Cc: linux-kernel, stable, linux-snps-arc

Hi Vineet,

On Tue, 2016-06-28 at 10:00 +0530, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> On Thursday 23 June 2016 01:30 PM, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
> > 
> > If CONFIG_ARC_DW2_UNWIND is disabled every time arc_unwind_core()
> > gets called following message gets printed in debug console:
> > ----------------->8---------------
> > CONFIG_ARC_DW2_UNWIND needs to be enabled
> > ----------------->8---------------
> > 
> > That message makes sense if user indeed wants to see a backtrace or
> > get nice function call-graphs in perf but what if user disabled
> > unwinder for the purpose? Why pollute his debug console?
> > 
> > So instead we'll warn user about possibly missing feature once and
> > let him decide if that was what he or she really wanted.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Alexey Brodkin <abrodkin@synopsys.com>
> > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org  [3.18+]
>
> Does this really need to be stable backport ?

I think it makes perfect sense for any kernel version because
it saves debug console from being polluted with messages which
most probably have no point (Ok I disabled unwinder in kernel config,
why then spam me with proposals to enable it)?

-Alexey

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

* [PATCH] arc: warn only once if DW2_UNWIND is disabled
@ 2016-06-28  5:38     ` Alexey Brodkin
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Alexey Brodkin @ 2016-06-28  5:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-snps-arc

Hi Vineet,

On Tue, 2016-06-28@10:00 +0530, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> On Thursday 23 June 2016 01:30 PM, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
> > 
> > If CONFIG_ARC_DW2_UNWIND is disabled every time arc_unwind_core()
> > gets called following message gets printed in debug console:
> > ----------------->8---------------
> > CONFIG_ARC_DW2_UNWIND needs to be enabled
> > ----------------->8---------------
> > 
> > That message makes sense if user indeed wants to see a backtrace or
> > get nice function call-graphs in perf but what if user disabled
> > unwinder for the purpose? Why pollute his debug console?
> > 
> > So instead we'll warn user about possibly missing feature once and
> > let him decide if that was what he or she really wanted.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Alexey Brodkin <abrodkin at synopsys.com>
> > Cc: stable at vger.kernel.org??[3.18+]
>
> Does this really need to be stable backport ?

I think it makes perfect sense for any kernel version because
it saves debug console from being polluted with messages which
most probably have no point (Ok I disabled unwinder in kernel config,
why then spam me with proposals to enable it)?

-Alexey

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2016-06-28  5:39 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-06-23  8:00 [PATCH] arc: warn only once if DW2_UNWIND is disabled Alexey Brodkin
2016-06-23  8:00 ` Alexey Brodkin
2016-06-28  4:30 ` Vineet Gupta
2016-06-28  4:30   ` Vineet Gupta
2016-06-28  5:38   ` Alexey Brodkin
2016-06-28  5:38     ` Alexey Brodkin
2016-06-28  5:38     ` Alexey Brodkin

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.