Re: [PATCH 2/3] tracing: Use pr_crit() instead of long fancy messages
On 2021-04-01 10:39, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: Hi Steven, On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 3:40 PM Steven Rostedt wrote: On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 11:31:03 +0200 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: This reduces kernel size by ca. 0.5 KiB. If you are worried about size, disable tracing and it will go away entirely. 0.5KiB is a drop in the bucket compared to what tracing adds in size overhead. Fair enough for this particular case, as tracing can be disabled. I think the same argument can be applied to patch #1 - it's hard to imaging anyone debugging an IOMMU driver on a system where a few hundred bytes makes the slightest bit of difference, and for people not debugging IOMMU drivers it should be moot (per the message itself). Robin.
Re: [PATCH 2/3] tracing: Use pr_crit() instead of long fancy messages
Hi Steven,
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 3:40 PM Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 11:31:03 +0200
> Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>
> > This reduces kernel size by ca. 0.5 KiB.
>
> If you are worried about size, disable tracing and it will go away
> entirely. 0.5KiB is a drop in the bucket compared to what tracing adds in
> size overhead.
Fair enough for this particular case, as tracing can be disabled.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
Re: [PATCH 2/3] tracing: Use pr_crit() instead of long fancy messages
On Wed 2021-03-31 09:40:07, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 11:31:03 +0200
> Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>
> > This reduces kernel size by ca. 0.5 KiB.
>
> If you are worried about size, disable tracing and it will go away
> entirely. 0.5KiB is a drop in the bucket compared to what tracing adds in
> size overhead.
>
> Sorry, but NAK.
>
> This has been very successful in stopping people from adding trace_printk()
> to the kernel, and I like to keep it that way.
I agree with Steven. I believe that the eye-catching form is
important.
Anyway, all three patches are replacing text that have
many common parts. It is:
pr_warn("\n");
pr_warn("**\n");
pr_warn("** NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE **\n");
pr_warn("** **\n");
pr_warn("** **\n");
pr_warn("** **\n");
pr_warn("** **\n");
pr_warn("** **\n");
pr_warn("** If you see this message and you are not debugging**\n");
pr_warn("** the kernel, report this immediately to your vendor! **\n");
pr_warn("** **\n");
pr_warn("** NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE **\n");
pr_warn("**\n");
It might be useful to avoid cut&pasting this entire blob and unify the
common parts.
My only concern is how to define the caller-specific lines so that
they fit with the common ones. They should not be longer than the
header and footer. We need to find a good compromise between
usability and over-engineering.
Also we have to keep bikeshading under control ;-)
Best Regards,
Petr
Re: [PATCH 2/3] tracing: Use pr_crit() instead of long fancy messages
On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 11:31:03 +0200 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > This reduces kernel size by ca. 0.5 KiB. If you are worried about size, disable tracing and it will go away entirely. 0.5KiB is a drop in the bucket compared to what tracing adds in size overhead. Sorry, but NAK. This has been very successful in stopping people from adding trace_printk() to the kernel, and I like to keep it that way. -- Steve
