Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 10 Nov 2008 19:37:13 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.28-rc4-mmotm1110 - you gotta be kidding me... |
| |
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:55:37 -0500 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> Somebody's been hitting the phunky pharmaceuticals in the last 4 days, > because this ball-of-joy snuck into linux-next.patch sometime between > -mmotm1106 and --mmotm1110. > > Seen in a 'make silentallconfig' > > Single-depth WCHAN output (SCHED_NO_NO_OMIT_FRAME_POINTER) [Y/n/?] (NEW) ? > > Calculate simpler /proc/<PID>/wchan values. If this option > is disabled then wchan values will recurse back to the > caller function. This provides more accurate wchan values, > at the expense of slightly more scheduling overhead.
I got lost here.
> If in doubt, say "Y". > > So if I say 'y', is that a request to disable it, or enable it? And > what exactly do I get if I vote *against* 'more accurate wchan values'? > Do I get everybody having the same wchan pointing somewhere in the > scheduler code, because that's where __builtin_return_address() points? > > And please - a triple negative in the Kconfig variable name? This has > gotta be a winner for poor taste in variable naming... >
Even if that is all sorted out, how the heck is anyone to decide whether or not they need this thing?
Also, if we really really are so wishy-washy indecisive that we need to make the function optional, it should if at all possible be made runtime-configurable, not compile-time.
| |