[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1467092276.3231.7.camel@synopsys.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 05:38:59 +0000
From: Alexey Brodkin <Alexey.Brodkin@...opsys.com>
To: Vineet Gupta <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-snps-arc@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arc: warn only once if DW2_UNWIND is disabled
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@...opsys.com>
> > Cc: stable@...r.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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists