On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 17:24:47 +0000 (UTC) Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]> wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Steven Rostedt" <[email protected]> > > To: "Mathieu Desnoyers" <[email protected]> > > Cc: "Peter Zijlstra" <[email protected]>, "LKML" > > <[email protected]>, "Ingo Molnar" <[email protected]>, > > "Rusty Russell" <[email protected]>, "Frederic Weisbecker" > > <[email protected]>, "Andrew Morton" > > <[email protected]> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 11:15:42 AM > > Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] tracing: Warn and notify if tracepoints are not > > loaded due to module taint > > > > On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 12:48:12 +0000 (UTC) > > Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > How about instead of a WARN, you use a normal KERN_ERR printk(). There's > > > > no point to the entire WARN state dump, that's needlessly verbose. > > > > > > > > When you have a normal error print you can have as many as are required > > > > and put the mod name back in. > > > > > > The good old printk KERN_ERR is a very good idea. I agree that WARN() is > > > too verbose for our needs here. > > > > Actually, it's not so bad for the WARN() after my last patch to only > > allocate (or even process tracepoints) if mod->num_tracepionts is > > greater than zero. I didn't realize you were wasting memory for all > > modules that were loaded. > > > > My fear with the KERN_ERR is that it wont be noticeable enough. Where > > as a stack dump is something that will catch people's attention. > > > > And as Rusty has said, if you are loading a module that is forced, or > > something strange, it is broken. The failure of loading the tracepoints > > of a module is a bug if the module happens to have tracepoints. > > > > After the MOD_SIG fix, any failure should be a big banner bug. Either > > they are using a forced module with tracepoints that should not be > > loaded. Or they have tracepoints is a non-GPL module (which is also a > > big no-no). > > Agreed that after the skip for modules containing 0 tracepoints, it gets > much more specific. I like that. > > So then a WARN_ON() that prints the specific module name involved would > be the way to go ? OK, I have a series of patches to fix a lot of these problems that I will be posting soon. I'm fine with either a WARN() here (with module name) or just a pr_err(). Which of theses do others think is the proper answer? Peter, Rusty, Andrew? -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
