From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christophe Lucas Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 10:02:09 +0000 Subject: Re: [patch 1/1] printk : arch/ia64/kernel/smp.c Message-Id: <20050323100209.GA9206@rhum.iomeda.fr> MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="ftEhullJWpWg/VHq" List-Id: References: <20050319131906.E934A1F245@trashy.coderock.org> In-Reply-To: <20050319131906.E934A1F245@trashy.coderock.org> To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org --ftEhullJWpWg/VHq Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Luck, Tony (tony.luck@intel.com) wrote: > > if (cpuid == me) { > >- printk("%s: trying to call self\n", __FUNCTION__); > >+ printk(KERN_INFO "%s: trying to call self\n", __FUNCTION__); > > put_cpu(); > > return -EBUSY; > > } > > I think this is a bit higher priority than KERN_INFO. If we > get here, then someone did something wrong at a higher level, > and they may be disapponited that the function they want called > isn't going to be called. > > Perhaps KERN_WARNING would be more appropriate? > > It might also be kind to anyone trying to debug this to print > the "func" argument. > > -Tony > Perhaps this could do the job: --ftEhullJWpWg/VHq Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="patch-linux-2.6.12-rc1_arch_ia64_kernel_smp.c.diff" diff -uprN -X dontdiff a/arch/ia64/kernel/smp.c b/arch/ia64/kernel/smp.c --- a/arch/ia64/kernel/smp.c 2005-03-18 02:34:36.000000000 +0100 +++ b/arch/ia64/kernel/smp.c 2005-03-23 10:35:18.000000000 +0100 @@ -269,7 +269,7 @@ smp_call_function_single (int cpuid, voi int me = get_cpu(); /* prevent preemption and reschedule on another processor */ if (cpuid == me) { - printk("%s: trying to call self\n", __FUNCTION__); + printk(KERN_WARNING "%s: trying to call self with info:%08x\n", __FUNCTION__, info); put_cpu(); return -EBUSY; } --ftEhullJWpWg/VHq--