On (19/11/13 10:39), Steven Rostedt wrote:
[..]
> > void show_stack(struct task_struct *task, unsigned long *sp, int log_level)
> > {
> > printk_emergency_enter(log_level);
> > __show_stack(task, sp);
> > printk_emergency_exit();
> > }
> > // - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
On (19/11/13 16:40), Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> It's also not very fun for me to create those patches.
> But they fix console_loglevel issues (I hope we could un-export it in
> the end) and also I need it for my other patches those will produce
> warnings with debug loglevel when configured through
Hi Sergey,
On 11/13/19 6:33 AM, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
[..]
> Well, here we go. There is a number of generally useful functions that
> print nice data and where people might want to have better loglevel control
> (for debugging purposes). show_stack() is just one of them. Patching all
> those
On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 09:47:22 +0100
Petr Mladek wrote:
> At the moment, I am in favor of this patchset. It is huge and
> needed a lot of manual work. But the result is straightforward and
> easy to understand.
I'm in favor of this patchset too. If there's other areas that need to
adjust the
On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 23:25:13 +
Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 09:34:40PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > I suppose I'm surprised there are backtraces that are not important.
> > Either badness happened and it needs printing, or the user asked for it
> > and
On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 21:34:40 +0100
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> I suppose I'm surprised there are backtraces that are not important.
> Either badness happened and it needs printing, or the user asked for it
> and it needs printing.
Unfortunately that is the case. As my tests will fail if a backtrace
On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 11:17:47 +0900
Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> void show_stack(struct task_struct *task, unsigned long *sp, int log_level)
> {
> printk_emergency_enter(log_level);
> __show_stack(task, sp);
> printk_emergency_exit();
> }
> // - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 13:44:47 +0900
Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> > > I do recall that we talked about per-CPU printk state bit which would
> > > start/end "just print it" section. We probably can extend it to "just
> > > log_store" type of functionality. Doesn't look like a very bad idea.
> >
>
On (19/11/13 02:41), Dmitry Safonov wrote:
[..]
>
> I don't strongly disagree, but if you look at those results:
> git grep 'printk("%s.*", \(lvl\|level\)'
>
> it seems to be used in quite a few places.
Yes, you are right, it is used in some places. That's why I said
that I'd prefer to keep
On 11/12/19 4:25 AM, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (19/11/12 02:40), Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> [..]
>> In my point of view the cost of one-time [mostly build] testing every
>> architecture is cheaper than introducing some new smart code that will
>> live forever.
>
> Well, there may be the need to
On 11/13/19 1:23 AM, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (19/11/12 19:12), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
>> On (19/11/12 09:35), Petr Mladek wrote:
>> [..]
>>> This is getting too complicated. It would introduce too many
>>> hidden rules. While the explicitly passed loglevel parameter
>>> is
On (19/11/12 19:12), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (19/11/12 09:35), Petr Mladek wrote:
> [..]
> > This is getting too complicated. It would introduce too many
> > hidden rules. While the explicitly passed loglevel parameter
> > is straightforward and clear.
>
> If loglevel is DEFAULT or NOTICE
On (19/11/12 09:35), Petr Mladek wrote:
[..]
> This is getting too complicated. It would introduce too many
> hidden rules. While the explicitly passed loglevel parameter
> is straightforward and clear.
If loglevel is DEFAULT or NOTICE or INFO then we can overwrite it
(either downgrade or
On Tue 2019-11-12 13:57:04, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (19/11/12 13:44), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> [..]
> > > But yes, this per-code-section loglevel is problematic. The feedback
> > > against the patchset shows that people want it also the other way.
> > > I mean to keep pr_debug() as
On (19/11/12 13:44), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
[..]
> > But yes, this per-code-section loglevel is problematic. The feedback
> > against the patchset shows that people want it also the other way.
> > I mean to keep pr_debug() as pr_debug().
>
> Hmm. Right.
>
> > A solution might be to use the
On (19/11/11 10:12), Petr Mladek wrote:
[..]
> > I do recall that we talked about per-CPU printk state bit which would
> > start/end "just print it" section. We probably can extend it to "just
> > log_store" type of functionality. Doesn't look like a very bad idea.
>
> The problem with per-CPU
On (19/11/12 02:40), Dmitry Safonov wrote:
[..]
> In my point of view the cost of one-time [mostly build] testing every
> architecture is cheaper than introducing some new smart code that will
> live forever.
Well, there may be the need to pass loglevel deeper due to "hey __show_stack()
on that
Hi Sergey,
On 11/12/19 2:17 AM, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (19/11/11 19:47), Dmitry Safonov wrote:
[..]
>> What I'm going to do - is to fix all build and reported issues, I'll
>> send v2 this week and feel free to NAK it, I will forget about those
>> patches and won't be offended.
>
>
On (19/11/11 19:47), Dmitry Safonov wrote:
[..]
> I don't see how bits on task_struct or in per-cpu are easier than
> supplying a log level parameter down the stack.
> How would it work if sysrq_handle_crash() called by key-press?
> How would that interact with deferred printing?
> How would it
Hi Sergey, Petr,
On 11/11/19 1:23 AM, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (19/11/08 14:04), Petr Mladek wrote:
> [..]
>> I agree that it is complicated to pass the loglevel as
>> a parameter. It would be better define the default
>> log level for a given code section. It might be stored
>> in
On Mon 2019-11-11 10:23:36, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (19/11/08 14:04), Petr Mladek wrote:
> [..]
> > I agree that it is complicated to pass the loglevel as
> > a parameter. It would be better define the default
> > log level for a given code section. It might be stored
> > in task_struct for
On (19/11/08 14:04), Petr Mladek wrote:
[..]
> I agree that it is complicated to pass the loglevel as
> a parameter. It would be better define the default
> log level for a given code section. It might be stored
> in task_struct for the normal context and in per-CPU
> variables for interrupt
On 11/8/19 5:30 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 04:28:30PM +, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
[..]
>>
>> Well, the use-case for lower log-level is that everything goes into logs
>> (/var/log/dmesg or /var/log/messages whatever rsyslog has settting).
>>
>> That has
On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 04:28:30PM +, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> On 11/6/19 8:34 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 04:27:33PM +, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> [..]
> >> Sorry, I should have tried to describe better.
> >>
> >> I'm trying to remove external users of
On 11/6/19 8:34 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 04:27:33PM +, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
[..]
>> Sorry, I should have tried to describe better.
>>
>> I'm trying to remove external users of console_loglevel by following
>> reasons:
>
> I suppose since all my machines have 'debug
On Fri 2019-11-08 19:37:19, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (19/11/06 09:35), Petr Mladek wrote:
> > I agree with all the other justification.
> >
> > I would add. The backtrace is really useful for debugging. It should
> > be possible to print it even in less critical situations.
>
> Hmm, I
On (19/11/06 09:35), Petr Mladek wrote:
> I agree with all the other justification.
>
> I would add. The backtrace is really useful for debugging. It should
> be possible to print it even in less critical situations.
Hmm, I don't know.
Do we really need debug/info level backtraces? May be all
On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 09:34:40PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> I suppose I'm surprised there are backtraces that are not important.
> Either badness happened and it needs printing, or the user asked for it
> and it needs printing.
Or utterly meaningless.
> Perhaps we should be removing
On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 04:27:33PM +, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On 11/6/19 9:20 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 03:04:51AM +, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> >> Add log level argument to show_stack().
> >> Done in three stages:
> >> 1. Introducing
Hi Peter,
On 11/6/19 9:20 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 03:04:51AM +, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
>> Add log level argument to show_stack().
>> Done in three stages:
>> 1. Introducing show_stack_loglvl() for every architecture
>> 2. Migrating old users with an explicit log
On 11/6/19 8:35 AM, Petr Mladek wrote:
> On Wed 2019-11-06 03:04:51, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
>> Add log level argument to show_stack().
>> Done in three stages:
>> 1. Introducing show_stack_loglvl() for every architecture
>> 2. Migrating old users with an explicit log level
>> 3. Renaming
On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 03:04:51AM +, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> Add log level argument to show_stack().
> Done in three stages:
> 1. Introducing show_stack_loglvl() for every architecture
> 2. Migrating old users with an explicit log level
> 3. Renaming show_stack_loglvl() into show_stack()
>
>
On Wed 2019-11-06 03:04:51, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> Add log level argument to show_stack().
> Done in three stages:
> 1. Introducing show_stack_loglvl() for every architecture
> 2. Migrating old users with an explicit log level
> 3. Renaming show_stack_loglvl() into show_stack()
>
>
33 matches
Mail list logo
