[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100604170331.GA3144@suse.de>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 10:03:31 -0700
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To: Daniel Mack <daniel@...aq.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Magnus Damm <damm@...l.co.jp>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers/base/power: be more verbose in device_pm_add()
On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 06:50:37PM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 09:45:27AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 02:17:14PM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote:
> > > If a parentless device was added during a PM transaction, developers
> > > might want to know which device caused the troube. Hence, output the
> > > kobject's name in this case.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Mack <daniel@...aq.de>
> > > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl>
> > > Cc: Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
> > > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>
> > > Cc: Magnus Damm <damm@...l.co.jp>
> > > Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
> > > Cc: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>
> > > Cc: linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org
> > > ---
> > > drivers/base/power/main.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/base/power/main.c b/drivers/base/power/main.c
> > > index 941fcb8..9e9fe6a 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/base/power/main.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/base/power/main.c
> > > @@ -98,7 +98,7 @@ void device_pm_add(struct device *dev)
> > > * transition is in progress in order to avoid leaving them
> > > * unhandled down the road
> > > */
> > > - dev_WARN(dev, "Parentless device registered during a PM transaction\n");
> > > + dev_WARN(dev, "Parentless device registered during a PM transaction: %s\n", kobject_name(&dev->kobj));
> >
> > Doesn'tthe dev_WARN call already print the name of the device? Why
> > print it twice?
>
> Erm, no it didn't. Should it have? This is what I saw:
>
> [ 0.880646] Parentless device registered during a PM transaction
You should have gotten more information than just that single line,
right? Like a full backtrace to the driver that did the offending
thing?
It should also have had a "Device: 'device_name_here'" on the line
before this one, right?
Can you send the full output that happened here?
thanks,
greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists