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. > > -- > Josh -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.