[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aUI_Bf6ZARxxtGyG@google.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2025 05:26:29 +0000
From: Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@...nel.org>
To: Waiman Long <llong@...hat.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] lockdep: Add header and footer to surround warning
reports
On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 09:57:30PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> On 12/16/25 7:31 PM, Tzung-Bi Shih wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 16, 2025 at 11:20:45AM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
> > > On 12/15/25 2:26 AM, Tzung-Bi Shih wrote:
> > > > @@ -110,6 +111,11 @@ static __init int kernel_lockdep_sysctls_init(void)
> > > > late_initcall(kernel_lockdep_sysctls_init);
> > > > #endif /* CONFIG_SYSCTL */
> > > > +static void print_footer(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > + pr_warn("---[ end trace %016llx ]---\n", 0ULL);
> > > What is the purpose of putting 16 '0' in this "end trace" line? Is it
> > > related to how your parsing script works?
> > Mostly wanted to align to print_oops_end_marker() in kernel/panic.c. Before
> > e83a4472bf9f ("panic: remove oops_id"), it was an oops ID. My parsing script
> > doesn't rely on the 16 '0's but existing parsers might.
> >
> > I have no strong opinion. Should we just remove the 16 '0's here?
>
> These are warning messages, not panic. So I would prefer not to have them if
> they serve no useful purpose and can cause confusion.
Ack, fixed in v3[1].
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20251217052353.1489154-1-tzungbi@kernel.org/T/#u
Powered by blists - more mailing lists