----- Ursprüngliche Mail ----- >> They are not required, but they are just useful. While you are right that the >> locations within UBIFS are unique, >> they are not for the whole kernel context. >> Filesystem functions can get called via many different paths from VFS... > > Isn't that true for any kernel error though. > Want to understand why it would be essential for ubifs to have these over the > other kernel modules? > Can't the developer add the dump_stack later for debugging reasons? In UBIFS the dump_stack() calls are more or less a WARN_ON(). Such situations should not happen. If they do, we want the details. So, in the long rung we could replace most of them by a WARN_ON(). Maybe even WARN_ON_ONCE(). >> Why do you want to remove them, what is the benefit? > > The way our system is using the ubifs, for a device which is 'no longer there' > could be frequent > 'no such device' errors when > 1. there might be multiple write accesses to the filesystem before the > responsible process is terminated > 2. the filesystem is unmounted after this > The result would be flooding of the console or message logs with both the error > messages and the dump_stack, > making it really ugly. > Is there a specific way a 'no such device' issue is handled to avoid the > messages from flooding with the dump_stacks? I don't follow, sorry. If your system too noisy, fix the log level. But usually when UBIFS prints an error followed by a stack trace, it is something serious you should address and not trying to make the error message look less scary. Thanks, //richard ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/