Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 23 Jan 2017 16:13:47 -0800 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 tip/core/rcu 02/18] lockdep: Make RCU suspicious-access splats use pr_err |
| |
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 02:33:19PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 11:30:16AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 12:40:23PM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 06:53:41PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > This commit switches RCU suspicious-access splats use pr_err() > > > > instead of the current INFO printk()s. This change makes it easier > > > > to automatically classify splats. > > > > > > > > Reported-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > > > --- > > > > kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 12 ++++++------ > > > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c > > > > index 7c38f8f3d97b..a74c0630172a 100644 > > > > --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c > > > > +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c > > > > @@ -4412,13 +4412,13 @@ void lockdep_rcu_suspicious(const char *file, const int line, const char *s) > > > > #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU_REPEATEDLY */ > > > > /* Note: the following can be executed concurrently, so be careful. */ > > > > printk("\n"); > > > > - printk("===============================\n"); > > > > - printk("[ INFO: suspicious RCU usage. ]\n"); > > > > + pr_err("===============================\n"); > > > > + pr_err("[ suspicious RCU usage. ]\n"); > > > > > > While re-adding the square bracket makes it symmetric, this change still > > > seems odd, and unrelated to the switch to pr_err. You could change it > > > to "ERR:" if you want, if "INFO:" feels inaccurate to you. > > > > So this would be OK? > > > > pr_err("[ ERR: suspicious RCU usage. ]\n"); > > > > (Changed to this as a best guess, but please let me know.) > > Yeah, that seems fine. Sorry to nitpick this; it just otherwise seemed > entirely unrelated to the rest of the change.
Might as well get it right... ;-)
Thanx, Paul
| |