Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 16 Jan 2017 12:59:25 -0800 | From | "Paul E. McKenney" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/20] lockdep: Make RCU suspicious-access splats use pr_err |
| |
On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 06:21:29PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 01:13:03AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > This commit switches RCU suspicious-access splats use pr_err() > > instead of the current INFO printk()s. This change makes it easier > > to automatically classify splats. > > > > Reported-by: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> > > Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> > > --- > > kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 12 ++++++------ > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c > > index 7c38f8f3d97b..844cd04bb453 100644 > > --- a/kernel/locking/lockdep.c > > +++ b/kernel/locking/lockdep.c > > @@ -4412,13 +4412,13 @@ void lockdep_rcu_suspicious(const char *file, const int line, const char *s) > > #endif /* #ifdef CONFIG_PROVE_RCU_REPEATEDLY */ > > /* Note: the following can be executed concurrently, so be careful. */ > > printk("\n"); > > - printk("===============================\n"); > > - printk("[ INFO: suspicious RCU usage. ]\n"); > > + pr_err("===============================\n"); > > + pr_err("suspicious RCU usage. ]\n"); > > print_kernel_ident(); > > - printk("-------------------------------\n"); > > - printk("%s:%d %s!\n", file, line, s); > > - printk("\nother info that might help us debug this:\n\n"); > > - printk("\n%srcu_scheduler_active = %d, debug_locks = %d\n", > > + pr_err("-------------------------------\n"); > > + pr_err("%s:%d %s!\n", file, line, s); > > + pr_err("\nother info that might help us debug this:\n\n"); > > + pr_err("\n%srcu_scheduler_active = %d, debug_locks = %d\n", > > !rcu_lockdep_current_cpu_online() > > ? "RCU used illegally from offline CPU!\n" > > : !rcu_is_watching() > > > This makes it inconsistent with the rest of lockdep; why are these more > important?
No idea. The checkpatch script whined piteously so I changed them.
Thanx, Paul
| |