[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150220103845.GB19378@pd.tnic>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 11:38:45 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Adrien Schildknecht <adrien+dev@...ischi.me>, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org,
rostedt@...dmis.org, heukelum@...tmail.fm, luto@...capital.net,
adech.fo@...il.com, masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, a.ryabinin@...sung.com,
fruggeri@...sta.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] x86: fix output of show_stack_log_lvl()
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 09:10:03AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> This approach looks good to me, we want to print multi-line
> messages with the same consistent loglevel.
Right, I'll pick this one up for now as it is obviously correct and
whatever we end up doing to pr_cont() won't influence it.
> Totally unrelated observation #2:
>
> > if (kstack_end(stack))
> > break;
> > - if (i && ((i % STACKSLOTS_PER_LINE) == 0))
> > - pr_cont("\n");
>
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/dumpstack_64.c
>
> > if (((long) stack & (THREAD_SIZE-1)) == 0)
> > break;
> > }
> > - if (i && ((i % STACKSLOTS_PER_LINE) == 0))
> > - pr_cont("\n");
>
> Looks like kstack_end() could be defined on 64-bit as well,
> unifying the stack printing logic some more?
>
> ( I'd no go so far as to unify the two functions, but the
> closer to each other the better it is to make changes
> that affect both of them. )
Adrien, want to take care of that one too?
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
--
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