Hi Vineet, On Tue, 2016-06-28 at 10:00 +-0530, Vineet Gupta wrote: +AD4- On Thursday 23 June 2016 01:30 PM, Alexey Brodkin wrote: +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- If CONFIG+AF8-ARC+AF8-DW2+AF8-UNWIND is disabled every time arc+AF8-unwind+AF8-core() +AD4- +AD4- gets called following message gets printed in debug console: +AD4- +AD4- -----------------+AD4-8--------------- +AD4- +AD4- CONFIG+AF8-ARC+AF8-DW2+AF8-UNWIND needs to be enabled +AD4- +AD4- -----------------+AD4-8--------------- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- That message makes sense if user indeed wants to see a backtrace or +AD4- +AD4- get nice function call-graphs in perf but what if user disabled +AD4- +AD4- unwinder for the purpose? Why pollute his debug console? +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- So instead we'll warn user about possibly missing feature once and +AD4- +AD4- let him decide if that was what he or she really wanted. +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- +AD4- Signed-off-by: Alexey Brodkin +ADw-abrodkin+AEA-synopsys.com+AD4- +AD4- +AD4- Cc: stable+AEA-vger.kernel.org+AKAAoABb-3.18+-+AF0- +AD4- +AD4- Does this really need to be stable backport ? I think it makes perfect sense for any kernel version because it saves debug console from being polluted with messages which most probably have no point (Ok I disabled unwinder in kernel config, why then spam me with proposals to enable it)? -Alexey-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html