lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 5/9] x86/dumpstack: Improve opcodes dumping in the Code: section
On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 07:25:35AM -0600, Josh Poimboeuf wrote:
> How about we just remove the 'code_bytes=' option?

Haha, removing stuff is my usual solution :-)

I'd love to.

> (Or at the very
> least, reduce its possible range to a reasonable max?)
>
> I doubt anybody actually uses it. I'd never heard of it before, nor
> have I ever seen an oops with a long code dump. I can't fathom why
> somebody would even need it. 64 bytes is plenty, and an 8k code dump
> just sounds insane.

Yeah, I see a Chuck Ebbert in git log output with a gmail account, maybe
that's the same person. (I've assumed he's not at RH anymore, otherwise
you would've CCed him :-)).

Let's ask him. CCed.

> It comes from the following commit:
>
> commit 86c418374223be3f328b5522545196db02c8ceda
> Author: Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@redhat.com>
> Date: Tue Feb 13 13:26:25 2007 +0100
>
> [PATCH] i386: add option to show more code in oops reports
>
> Sometimes developers need to see more object code in an oops report,
> e.g. when kernel may be corrupted at runtime.
>
> Add the "code_bytes" option for this.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
>
> But I've never seen a case where somebody needed to use it.
>
> --
> Josh

--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-07 15:17    [W:0.070 / U:3.400 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site