[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170123223319.GB1351@cloud>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 14:33:19 -0800
From: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...nel.org,
jiangshanlai@...il.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, peterz@...radead.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
dhowells@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, dvhart@...ux.intel.com,
fweisbec@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com, bobby.prani@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 tip/core/rcu 02/18] lockdep: Make RCU
suspicious-access splats use pr_err
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 11:30:16AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 12:40:23PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 06:53:41PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > This commit switches RCU suspicious-access splats use pr_err()
> > > instead of the current INFO printk()s. This change makes it easier
> > > to automatically classify splats.
> > >
> > > Reported-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > ---
> > > kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 12 ++++++------
> > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> > > index 7c38f8f3d97b..a74c0630172a 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c
> > > @@ -4412,13 +4412,13 @@ void lockdep_rcu_suspicious(const char *file, const int line, const char *s)
> > > #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU_REPEATEDLY */
> > > /* Note: the following can be executed concurrently, so be careful. */
> > > printk("\n");
> > > - printk("===============================\n");
> > > - printk("[ INFO: suspicious RCU usage. ]\n");
> > > + pr_err("===============================\n");
> > > + pr_err("[ suspicious RCU usage. ]\n");
> >
> > While re-adding the square bracket makes it symmetric, this change still
> > seems odd, and unrelated to the switch to pr_err. You could change it
> > to "ERR:" if you want, if "INFO:" feels inaccurate to you.
>
> So this would be OK?
>
> pr_err("[ ERR: suspicious RCU usage. ]\n");
>
> (Changed to this as a best guess, but please let me know.)
Yeah, that seems fine. Sorry to nitpick this; it just otherwise seemed
entirely unrelated to the rest of the change.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists