Re: [PATCH v5 05/13] module: Add printk formats to add module build ID to stacktraces

[Stephen Boyd]

Quoting Andy Shevchenko (2021-04-23 06:24:53)
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 04:46:40PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Andy Shevchenko (2021-04-21 04:49:33)
> > > On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 02:49:55PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > > Example:
> > >
> > > Please, shrink the example to leave only meaningful lines.
> > >
> > > Why, e.g., do we need to see register dump, is it somehow different?
> >
> > Can you format it how you would like to see it? Should it be a unified
> > diff? I agree it would help to see "what changed" but also don't know
> > what you want so opted to provide more information, not less. I was
> > worried about the questions like "do you change other parts of a splat?"
> > so I just put the whole thing there.
>
>
> Before:
>  ...line X...
>  ...
>  ...line Y...
>
> After:
>  ...line X'...
>  ...
>  ...line Y'...
>
> Three lines of example per each paragraph, in each of them the middle one is
> simply [...].

Ok got it. Thanks for clarifying.

>
> ...
>
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_STACKTRACE_BUILD_ID
> > > > +     /* Module build ID */
> > > > +     unsigned char build_id[BUILD_ID_SIZE_MAX];
> > >
> > > Is it really string of characters? Perhaps u8 will be more explicit.
> >
> > I'm just matching the build ID API that uses unsigned char. If you want
> > u8 then we should update more places. I could do that in a followup
> > patch, but this one is already sorta big.
>
> Unsigned char here is confusing. I would prefer a prerequisite patch to fix
> other places first.
>

Does anyone else want this to happen first? Andrew? I'm inclined to fix
this in a followup. As I said before, this would make this an even
bigger patch series which I'd like to avoid.