lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: 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.



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-11-11 04:39    [W:0.039 / U:95.716 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site