Re: [PATCH 0/5] [RFC] printk/ia64/ppc64/parisc64: let's deprecate %pF/%pf printk specifiers

Helge Deller
2017-09-19T14:07:17Z

On 19.09.2017 04:05, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (09/18/17 20:39), Helge Deller wrote:
>> I did tried your testcases [on parisc] too.
...
>> and here is "modprobe zram":
>> printk#7 __UNIQUE_ID_vermagic8+0xb9a4/0xbd04 [zram]
>> printk#8 __UNIQUE_ID_vermagic8+0xb9a4/0xbd04 [zram]
>> printk#9 do_one_initcall+0x194/0x290
>> printk#10 do_one_initcall+0x194/0x290
>> printk#11 do_one_initcall+0x194/0x290
>> printk#12 do_one_initcall+0x194/0x290
>> printk#13 zram_init+0x22c/0x2a0 [zram]
>> printk#14 zram_init+0x22c/0x2a0 [zram]
>> printk#15 zram_init+0x22c/0x2a0 [zram]
>> printk#16 zram_init+0x22c/0x2a0 [zram]
>>
>> I wonder why printk#7 and printk#8 don't show "zram_init"...
>
> interesting... what does the unpatched kernel show?

Really strange.
The unpatched kernel shows __UNIQUE_ID_vermagic8+0xb9a4/0xbd04 too.
The symbol should be known, because later on in printk13 it shows correctly zram_init.
I'll need to dig deeper into it, but at least the regression is not due
to your patch.

Helge