From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759230AbYLLP4p (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:56:45 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757570AbYLLP4h (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:56:37 -0500 Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:45952 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757520AbYLLP4g (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:56:36 -0500 Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 07:57:46 -0800 From: Arjan van de Ven To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Pekka Enberg , Linus Torvalds , Frans Pop , Eric Anholt , nix.or.die@googlemail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rjw@sisk.pl, Yinghai Lu Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.28-rc8 Message-ID: <20081212075746.4ddc9349@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20081212082456.GA25106@elte.hu> References: <49407CE1.9090600@googlemail.com> <1228979963.3254.8.camel@gaiman.anholt.net> <200812111707.20857.elendil@planet.nl> <20081211163548.GA11859@elte.hu> <20081211203604.GA14817@elte.hu> <84144f020812111246m7f6470f2n8b09283f54ead81@mail.gmail.com> <20081212082456.GA25106@elte.hu> Organization: Intel X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.6.0 (GTK+ 2.14.4; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by casper.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 09:24:56 +0100 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Pekka Enberg wrote: > > > Hi Ingo, > > > > On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 10:36 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > ok. In this case i'd suggest we should just remove the warning. > > > People do get scared by needless kernel stack dumps - no matter > > > whether it's marked informational or not. > > > > > > So how about the patch below, queued up in tip/x86/debug? Arjan, > > > what do you think? > > > > How come we don't put it under CONFIG_X86_DEBUG or something and > > hide somewhere in the "Kernel debugging" menu? > > okay - how about the following then instead - we still keep the > warning, but do various things to make it appear less scary. another thing we could do is try to only warn if you cross bar boundaries but not if you cross other user-of-the-resource boundaries.