Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] Refactor part of the oom report in dump_header

[çèé]

Hi Michal

> I have earlier suggested that you split this into two parts. One to add
> the missing information and the later to convert it to a single printk
> output.

I'm sorry I do not get your point.  What do you mean the missing information?

> but it still really begs an example why we really insist on a single
> printk and that should be in its own changelog.

Actually , I just know that we should avoid the interleaving messages
in the dmesg.
But I don't know how to reproduce this issue.  I think I can just
recount this issue in
the changelog.

Thanks