[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJ-ks9=L6zYyr=jsGBbMvL+rwtnPN0MsgZg-Uvz1WeMDyeZXEA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2025 10:38:03 -0400
From: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.com>
To: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
Benno Lossin <lossin@...nel.org>, Andreas Hindborg <a.hindborg@...nel.org>,
Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Trevor Gross <tmgross@...ch.edu>,
Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@...ux.dev>,
David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>, Rae Moar <rmoar@...gle.com>, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] rust: emit path candidates in panic message
On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 9:21 AM Miguel Ojeda
<miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 3:15 PM Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > Include all information in the panic message rather than emit fragments
> > to stderr.
>
> Could we explain the "why" as well in the message? (i.e. not just the "what")
Sure, that would be:
Include all information in the panic message rather than emit fragments
to stderr to avoid possible interleaving with other output.
Let me know if I should send another spin for this, or if this is ok
to do on apply.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists