On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 19:36:19 -0700 Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2020-08-20 at 21:57 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Aug 2020 09:39:19 +0800 > > Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > [] > > > Some other approaches/ideas: > > > 1. Filter all lkml messages that contain trace_printk. Already found > > > 1 instance, and I can easily reply to those with a semi-canned answer, > > > if I remember to check that filter regularly (not sustainable in the > > > long run...). > > > > Added Joe Perches to the thread. > > > > We can update checkpatch.pl to complain about a trace_printk() that it > > finds in the added code. > > Why? > > I don't see much value in a trace_printk checkpatch warning. > tracing is still dependent on CONFIG_TRACING otherwise > trace_printk is an if (0) > > ELI5 please. > Because no production code should contain trace_printk(). It should be deleted before going to Linus. If you have trace_printk() in your code, you will be greeted by the following banner in your dmesg: ********************************************************** ** NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE ** ** ** ** trace_printk() being used. Allocating extra memory. ** ** ** ** This means that this is a DEBUG kernel and it is ** ** unsafe for production use. ** ** ** ** If you see this message and you are not debugging ** ** the kernel, report this immediately to your vendor! ** ** ** ** NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE ** ********************************************************** -- Steve _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
