On Fri 2019-11-08 19:37:19, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (19/11/06 09:35), Petr Mladek wrote: > > I agree with all the other justification. > > > > I would add. The backtrace is really useful for debugging. It should > > be possible to print it even in less critical situations. > > Hmm, I don't know. > Do we really need debug/info level backtraces? debug is exactly the loglevel where registry content and backtrace might be very useful. It is not always important to reach the console. > May be all backtraces can be converted to something more severe > (so we can stop playing games with loglvl) and then we can > clean up "(ab)users"? IMHO, we should distinguish warning, error, crit, alert, emerg situations. Backtraces and any related messages should be filtered the same way. Any information might be useless without the context. I agree that it is complicated to pass the loglevel as a parameter. It would be better define the default log level for a given code section. It might be stored in task_struct for the normal context and in per-CPU variables for interrupt contexts. Best Regards, Petr _______________________________________________ linux-snps-arc mailing list linux-snps-arc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc
