On 01/22/18 03:49, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> Hi Frank,
>
>> Please go back and read the thread for version 1. Simply resubmitting a
>> forward port is ignoring that whole conversation.
>>
>> There is a lot of good info in that thread. I certainly learned stuff in it.
>
> Yes, I did that and learned stuff, too. My summary of the discussion was:
>
> - you mentioned some drawbacks you saw (like the mixture of trace output
> and printk output)> - most of them look like addressed to me? (e.g. Steven
> showed a way to redirect
> printk to trace
> - you posted your version (which was, however, marked as "not user friendly"
> even by yourself)
Not exactly a fair quoting. There were two things I said:
"Here is a patch that I have used. It is not as user friendly in terms
of human readable stack traces (though a very small user space program
should be able to fix that)."
So easy to fix using existing userspace programs to convert kernel
addresses to symbols.
"FIXME: Currently using pr_err() so I don't need to set loglevel on boot.
So obviously not a user friendly tool!!!
The process is:
- apply patch
- configure, build, boot kernel
- analyze data
- remove patch"
So not friendly because it uses pr_err() instead of pr_debug(). In
a reply I said if I submitted my patches I would change it to use
pr_debug() instead. So not an issue.
And not user friendly because it requires patching the kernel.
Again a NOP if I submitted my patch, because the patch would
already be in the kernel.
But whatever, let's ignore that - a poor quoting is not a reason to
reject this version of the patch.
> - The discussion stalled over having two approaches
Then you should have stated such when you resubmitted.
> So, I thought reposting would be a good way of finding out if your
> concerns were addressed in the discussion or not. If I overlooked
Then you should have stated that there were concerns raised in the
discussion and asked me if my concerns were addressed.
> something, I am sorry for that. Still, my intention is to continue the
> discussion, not to ignore it. Because as it stands, we don't have such a
> debugging mechanism in place currently, and with people working with DT
> overlays, I'd think it would be nice to have.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Wolfram
>
Rob suggested:
>
> @@ -25,8 +28,10 @@
> */
> struct device_node *of_node_get(struct device_node *node)
> {
> - if (node)
> + if (node) {
> kobject_get(&node->kobj);
> +
trace_of_node_get(refcount_read(&node->kobj.kref.refcount), node->full_name);
Seems like there should be a kobj wrapper to read the refcount.
As far as I noticed, that was never addressed. I don't know the answer, but
the question was asked. And if there is no such function, then there is at
least kref_read(), which would improve the code a little bit.
I'll reply to the patch 0/1 and patch 1/1 emails with review comments.
-Frank
