Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2008 10:26:19 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
       heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, olof@lixom.net, mpm@selenic.com
Subject: Re: [patch 0/5] enhance WARN_ON series
Message-ID: <20080106092619.GA23627@elte.hu>
References: <20080105190713.73745ec6@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20080105190713.73745ec6@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1080
Lines: 26


* Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org> wrote:

> 3rd try for this patch series; now with a split up patch for __WARN_ON
> 
> This series has the goal of extending the usefulness of the WARN_ON() 
> information, at least on architectures that use the generic WARN_ON() 
> infrastructure. (Those who do their own thing either already have the 
> extra information, or could consider switching to the generic code). 
> In order to do that, WARN_ON() first needs to be uninlined since 
> there's like 1200 callsites and adding code to each of those isn't 
> pretty.
> 
> As part of this, I had to split the __WARN_ON patch in -mm into 2 
> pieces, one to introduce __WARN_ON, and a separate one to do the ifdef 
> cleanup.

i've added the first 3 patches to x86.git, for further testing - and 
would expect -mm to pick up #4/#5.

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/