[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1105131455140.6451@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 14:56:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
cc: Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] printk: Add %ptc to safely print a task's comm
On Thu, 12 May 2011, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > Although I'm not sure if there's precedent for a %p value that didn't
> > > > take a argument. Thoughts on that? Anyone else have an opinion here?
> > > The uses of %ptc must add an argument or else gcc will complain.
> > > I suggest you just ignore the argument value and use current.
> > That doesn't make any sense, why would you needlessly restrict this to
> > current when accesses to other threads' ->comm needs to be protected in
> > the same way? I'd like to use this in the oom killer and try to get rid
> > of taking task_lock() for every thread group leader in the tasklist dump.
>
> I suppose another view is coder stuffed up, let them suffer...
>
> At some point, gcc may let us extend printf argument type
> verification so it may not be a continuing problem.
>
I don't understand your respose, could you answer my question? Printing
the command of threads other than current isn't special.
--
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