On Mon 2026-08-31 12:49:28, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Mon, 31 Aug 2026 15:37:29 +0200 > Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Could someone yell here, please? I convinced myself that hiding > > unresolved pointers is the good thing to do here since a "wrong" pointer > > would be seen in backtrace anyway. > > > > Thread starts at > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ > > I wonder if we should just tagged hash values as such: > > | [ 1.498171] <TASK> > | [ 1.498172] 00000000cb9bc262 [hash] > | [ 1.498174] ? 00000000eb5021dd [hash] > | [ 1.498176] 00000000ed1a9938 [hash] > | [ 1.498178] </TASK> > > So that people will know that the value is just some random hash value and > not a real address. > > Although rather useless in call stacks, I like hash values because the same > address will show up the same. > > Having '[unknown]' may also be confusing because it doesn't really say > "why" it was unknown. But having a number goes back to what it always did. > Hashing it with a "[hash]" marker will also let people know the value was > hashed.
I like this idea. I just wonder whether it might confuse some parsers who expect that symbol name is one string. %ps, %pS, %pB are used in various context. I think about adding the hint into the hashed value, e.g. by using 'h' instead of the highest number, something like: [ 1.498171] <TASK> [ 1.498172] h0000000cb9bc262 [ 1.498174] ? h0000000eb5021dd [ 1.498176] h0000000ed1a9938 [ 1.498178] </TASK> But 'h' is not a valid number number so it might confuse parsers as well. And it is not that user friedly either. So, I still like more Steven's variant with [hash]. Best Regards, Petr
