From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 26 Oct 2002 06:24:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 26 Oct 2002 06:24:35 -0400 Received: from smtp.kolej.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.25.225]:27916 "EHLO smtp.kolej.mff.cuni.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 26 Oct 2002 06:23:51 -0400 X-Envelope-From: pavel@bug.ucw.cz Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 01:08:57 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: Robert Love Cc: Christoph Hellwig , torvalds@transmeta.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, riel@conectiva.com.br Subject: Re: [PATCH] pre-decoded wchan output Message-ID: <20021021230856.GA120@elf.ucw.cz> References: <1034882043.1072.589.camel@phantasy> <20021017205803.A7555@infradead.org> <1034885077.718.595.camel@phantasy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1034885077.718.595.camel@phantasy> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > Can't you just left the old, nuerical one in even if CONFIG_KALLSYMS > > ise set? One ifdef less and far less surprises.. > > But why? Save the call to get_wchan()... Yes, and force users to update procps for no good reason. And "new" procps will still need code to deal with get_wchan themselves... Plus you loose information by killing get_wchan() -- two different wait points in one function seems very possible to me. Pavel -- Worst form of spam? Adding advertisment signatures ala sourceforge.net. What goes next? Inserting advertisment *into* email?