On 3/17/26 03:03, Dan Carpenter wrote:
I think this is great to suppress some warnings, and I already ACKed this patchset. But we're still going to have some warnings where the warning is the whole point of the test.
Maybe my memory defeats me, but if I recall correctly the original patch set counted the skipped warnings. I don't see why a to-be-parsed message would be necessary or add value over that. Guenter
It would be great if marked these somehow: 1) At minimum we should mark them so people seeing the warning know it's intentional. "Intentional Stack Trace". I've sent at least one patch to add that printk before the stack trace but it was ignored. We could do this piecemeal. 2) It would be nice if the print was standardized enough so CI systems could automatically filter it out. regards, dan carpenter
