Re: [PATCH 05/50] Dynamic debug: Add more flags

From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Fri Mar 18 2011 - 06:23:44 EST

* Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 01:56:08PM -0400, Jason Baron wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 02:10:43PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > Add flags that allow the user to specify via debugfs whether or not the
> > > module name, function name, line number and/or thread ID have to be
> > > included in the printed message.
> >
> > This piece is going to conflict with the jump label update patches, I'm
> > trying to get into .39. The 'if (unlikely(descriptor.enabled))' bit is
> > now: 'if (DDEBUG_BRANCH(descriptor.enabled))'. So its a small conflict,
> > but they wouldn't merge together. So we need to adjust either one (and
> > make sure they're applied in the correct orer), or drop one.
> This has been in linux-next for months now, [...]

Btw, a workflow observation, i'd have expected such a commit:

> Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Greg Banks <gnb@xxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> Documentation/dynamic-debug-howto.txt | 12 +++++-
> include/linux/dynamic_debug.h | 8 ++++-
> lib/dynamic_debug.c | 60 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> 3 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

... to at least have the ack from Jason who is the author and maintainer of the
dyn-printk bits. You should at least have Cc:-ed him!

Preferably it should have been merged through him. That would also have alerted
him to the conflict potential and would have concentrated all changes in a
single tree, as it really should happen ...

So could you *please* do such changes in a bit more organized fashion in the
future? Please use the get_maintainer script:

$ scripts/ -f lib/dynamic_debug.c

Jason Baron <jbaron@xxxxxxxxxx> (commit_signer:6/10=60%)
Thomas Renninger <trenn@xxxxxxx> (commit_signer:3/10=30%)
Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (commit_signer:3/10=30%)
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxx> (commit_signer:3/10=30%)
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> (commit_signer:2/10=20%)
linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (open list)

The majority of those gents were not Cc:-ed to any of the submissions and

To answer your question, the in-flight changes Jason is talking about have not
touched linux-next yet because they went through several levels of review
feedback. Had your patches gone through a similar review process they might
still be in flight as well and we'd also have found out about any conflicts


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at