Re: [PATCH 2/3] printk: Add %ptc to safely print a task's comm

[David Rientjes]

On Thu, 12 May 2011, Joe Perches wrote:

> > > > Although I'm not sure if there's precedent for a %p value that didn't
> > > > take a argument. Thoughts on that? Anyone else have an opinion here?
> > > The uses of %ptc must add an argument or else gcc will complain.
> > > I suggest you just ignore the argument value and use current.
> > That doesn't make any sense, why would you needlessly restrict this to 
> > current when accesses to other threads' ->comm needs to be protected in 
> > the same way?  I'd like to use this in the oom killer and try to get rid 
> > of taking task_lock() for every thread group leader in the tasklist dump.
> 
> I suppose another view is coder stuffed up, let them suffer...
> 
> At some point, gcc may let us extend printf argument type
> verification so it may not be a continuing problem.
> 

I don't understand your respose, could you answer my question?  Printing 
the command of threads other than current isn't special.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/