On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> i'll probably ack such a patch, it can be useful even when the line
> number is unique: if someone reports a WARN_ON() from an old kernel i
> dont have to dig up the exact source but can see it right from the
> condition what happened. Useful redundancy in bug output can be quite
> useful at times. Please post it and we'll see whether it's acceptable.
OK, thanks, I will send it later today.
BTW I still don't see how to distinguish it easily ... for example:
WARNING at kernel/mutex.c:132 __mutex_lock_common()
[<c0103d70>] dump_trace+0x68/0x1b5
[<c0103ed5>] show_trace_log_lvl+0x18/0x2c
[<c010445b>] show_trace+0xf/0x11
[<c01044cd>] dump_stack+0x12/0x14
[<c037523f>] __mutex_lock_slowpath+0xc6/0x261
[<c0199c61>] create_dir+0x24/0x1ba
[<c019a30b>] sysfs_create_dir+0x45/0x5f
[<c01f302b>] kobject_add+0xd6/0x18d
[<c01f31fb>] kobject_register+0x19/0x30
[<c02e771a>] md_probe+0x11a/0x124
[<c0267fa4>] kobj_lookup+0xe6/0x122
[<c01ec12e>] get_gendisk+0xe/0x1b
[<c018590e>] do_open+0x2e/0x298
[<c0185d0f>] blkdev_open+0x25/0x4d
[<c016451b>] __dentry_open+0xc3/0x17e
[<c0164650>] nameidata_to_filp+0x24/0x33
[<c0164691>] do_filp_open+0x32/0x39
[<c01646da>] do_sys_open+0x42/0xbe
[<c016478f>] sys_open+0x1c/0x1e
[<c0102dbc>] syscall_call+0x7/0xb
How can you see immediately which one of the two WARN_ONs in
spin_lock_mutex() triggered?
--
Jiri Kosina
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
