On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 07:25:35AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> How about we just remove the 'code_bytes=' option?
Haha, removing stuff is my usual solution :-)
I'd love to.
> (Or at the very
> least, reduce its possible range to a reasonable max?)
> I doubt anybody actually uses it. I'd never heard of it before, nor
> have I ever seen an oops with a long code dump. I can't fathom why
> somebody would even need it. 64 bytes is plenty, and an 8k code dump
> just sounds insane.
Yeah, I see a Chuck Ebbert in git log output with a gmail account, maybe
that's the same person. (I've assumed he's not at RH anymore, otherwise
you would've CCed him :-)).
Let's ask him. CCed.
> It comes from the following commit:
> commit 86c418374223be3f328b5522545196db02c8ceda
> Author: Chuck Ebbert <cebb...@redhat.com>
> Date: Tue Feb 13 13:26:25 2007 +0100
> [PATCH] i386: add option to show more code in oops reports
> Sometimes developers need to see more object code in an oops report,
> e.g. when kernel may be corrupted at runtime.
> Add the "code_bytes" option for this.
> Signed-off-by: Chuck Ebbert <cebb...@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <a...@suse.de>
> Cc: Andi Kleen <a...@suse.de>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org>
> But I've never seen a case where somebody needed to use it.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.