[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHCio2jufEO7D4AT89URi+QWYJRMXyUo0-PwobcJzm0iLUnEzQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2018 16:57:17 +0800
From: 禹舟键 <ufo19890607@...il.com>
To: mhocko@...nel.org
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, rientjes@...gle.com,
kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, aarcange@...hat.com,
penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp, guro@...com,
yang.s@...baba-inc.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Wind Yu <yuzhoujian@...ichuxing.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] Refactor part of the oom report in dump_header
Hi Michal
> I have earlier suggested that you split this into two parts. One to add
> the missing information and the later to convert it to a single printk
> output.
I'm sorry I do not get your point. What do you mean the missing information?
> but it still really begs an example why we really insist on a single
> printk and that should be in its own changelog.
Actually , I just know that we should avoid the interleaving messages
in the dmesg.
But I don't know how to reproduce this issue. I think I can just
recount this issue in
the changelog.
Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists