[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 2.6.28-rc4-mmotm1110 - you gotta be kidding me...
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:55:37 -0500 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.

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-11-11 04:39    [W:0.037 / U:6.148 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site