On Sat 2007-11-17 20:42:40, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 11:35:01AM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:46:52 -0800
> > Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > by ... not too much at least, gcc ought to be quite good at merging
> > > > same-strin
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 16:57:19 -0800
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Should be done for all architectures, methinks.
>
> If so, an appropriate way to do that would be to do
> s/dump_stack/arch_dump_stack/ and do a single all-arch implementation
> of dump_stack(). (Where we might add
* Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Should be done for all architectures, methinks.
>
> If so, an appropriate way to do that would be to do
> s/dump_stack/arch_dump_stack/ and do a single all-arch implementation
> of dump_stack(). (Where we might add new goodies in the future).
i ag
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 01:42:18 +0100 Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > ok so how about putting the same into dump_stack() instead? (see
> > below) added bonus is that it's now present for all dumps that use
> > dump_stack(), not just W
* Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ok so how about putting the same into dump_stack() instead? (see
> below) added bonus is that it's now present for all dumps that use
> dump_stack(), not just WARN_ON() (the format I copied from the exact
> line used by oopses)
nice! I did thing
On Saturday 17 November 2007 10:15, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> Hi,
>
> #define WARN_ON(condition) ({
> \
> int __ret_warn_on = !!(condition); \
> if (unlikely(__ret_warn_on)) {
On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 11:35:01AM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:46:52 -0800
> Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > by ... not too much at least, gcc ought to be quite good at merging
> > > same-strings into one, so it's just one extra pointer argument
> > >
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:46:52 -0800
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > by ... not too much at least, gcc ought to be quite good at merging
> > same-strings into one, so it's just one extra pointer argument
> >
>
> I think I knew that. At 1000 callsites.
ok so how about putting the sam
On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 10:15:52AM -0800, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> Hi,
>
> today, all oopses contain a version number of the kernel, which is nice
> because the people who actually do bother to read the oops get this
> vital bit of information always without having to ask the reporter in
> anothe
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:39:47 -0800 Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:27:20 -0800
> Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:15:52 -0800 Arjan van de Ven
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > @@ -35,8 +36,8 @@ struct bug_entry {
>
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:27:20 -0800
Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:15:52 -0800 Arjan van de Ven
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > @@ -35,8 +36,8 @@ struct bug_entry {
> > #define WARN_ON(condition)
> > ({ \ int
> > __ret
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:15:52 -0800 Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> @@ -35,8 +36,8 @@ struct bug_entry {
> #define WARN_ON(condition) ({
> \
> int __ret_warn_on = !!(condition); \
> if (unlikely(
12 matches
Mail list logo
