Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/5] [RFC] printk/ia64/ppc64/parisc64: let's deprecate %pF/%pf printk specifiers | From | Helge Deller <> | Date | Tue, 19 Sep 2017 16:07:17 +0200 |
| |
On 19.09.2017 04:05, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (09/18/17 20:39), Helge Deller wrote: >> I did tried your testcases [on parisc] too. ... >> and here is "modprobe zram": >> printk#7 __UNIQUE_ID_vermagic8+0xb9a4/0xbd04 [zram] >> printk#8 __UNIQUE_ID_vermagic8+0xb9a4/0xbd04 [zram] >> printk#9 do_one_initcall+0x194/0x290 >> printk#10 do_one_initcall+0x194/0x290 >> printk#11 do_one_initcall+0x194/0x290 >> printk#12 do_one_initcall+0x194/0x290 >> printk#13 zram_init+0x22c/0x2a0 [zram] >> printk#14 zram_init+0x22c/0x2a0 [zram] >> printk#15 zram_init+0x22c/0x2a0 [zram] >> printk#16 zram_init+0x22c/0x2a0 [zram] >> >> I wonder why printk#7 and printk#8 don't show "zram_init"... > > interesting... what does the unpatched kernel show?
Really strange. The unpatched kernel shows __UNIQUE_ID_vermagic8+0xb9a4/0xbd04 too. The symbol should be known, because later on in printk13 it shows correctly zram_init. I'll need to dig deeper into it, but at least the regression is not due to your patch.
Helge
| |