[lkml]   [2011]   [Mar]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 05/50] Dynamic debug: Add more flags

* Greg KH <> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 01:56:08PM -0400, Jason Baron wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 02:10:43PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > Add flags that allow the user to specify via debugfs whether or not the
> > > module name, function name, line number and/or thread ID have to be
> > > included in the printed message.
> >
> > This piece is going to conflict with the jump label update patches, I'm
> > trying to get into .39. The 'if (unlikely(descriptor.enabled))' bit is
> > now: 'if (DDEBUG_BRANCH(descriptor.enabled))'. So its a small conflict,
> > but they wouldn't merge together. So we need to adjust either one (and
> > make sure they're applied in the correct orer), or drop one.
> This has been in linux-next for months now, [...]

Btw, a workflow observation, i'd have expected such a commit:

> Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche <>
> Cc: Greg Banks <>
> Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <>
> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <>
> ---
> Documentation/dynamic-debug-howto.txt | 12 +++++-
> include/linux/dynamic_debug.h | 8 ++++-
> lib/dynamic_debug.c | 60 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> 3 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

... to at least have the ack from Jason who is the author and maintainer of the
dyn-printk bits. You should at least have Cc:-ed him!

Preferably it should have been merged through him. That would also have alerted
him to the conflict potential and would have concentrated all changes in a
single tree, as it really should happen ...

So could you *please* do such changes in a bit more organized fashion in the
future? Please use the get_maintainer script:

$ scripts/ -f lib/dynamic_debug.c

Jason Baron <> (commit_signer:6/10=60%)
Thomas Renninger <> (commit_signer:3/10=30%)
Pekka Enberg <> (commit_signer:3/10=30%)
Greg Kroah-Hartman <> (commit_signer:3/10=30%)
Steven Rostedt <> (commit_signer:2/10=20%) (open list)

The majority of those gents were not Cc:-ed to any of the submissions and

To answer your question, the in-flight changes Jason is talking about have not
touched linux-next yet because they went through several levels of review
feedback. Had your patches gone through a similar review process they might
still be in flight as well and we'd also have found out about any conflicts



 \ /
  Last update: 2011-03-18 11:25    [W:0.053 / U:0.376 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site