Re: [PATCH] stop ==== emergency

[Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>]

Hi Hugh, Pete,

> > This is wrong, Hugh. What do you think the priority of the second printk?
> > It's not log_lvl, that's for sure.
> 
> Are you sure?  I've not delved into the printk code itself, but this
> does follow the same pattern as in show_stack_log_lvl itself e.g. its
> "Call Trace:\n" line.  (I am assuming print_context_stack ends with a
> newline, as it does.)

The code was correct (and was applied already as far as I can see.)
However, given that printk calls aren't exactly cheap, don't we want to
merge them where possible?


Merge a few printk calls in i386 traps.

Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>
---
 arch/i386/kernel/traps.c |   12 ++++--------
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

--- linux-2.6.16-rc2.orig/arch/i386/kernel/traps.c	2006-02-06 07:50:57.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.16-rc2/arch/i386/kernel/traps.c	2006-02-06 19:42:10.000000000 +0100
@@ -114,8 +114,7 @@
 
 static void print_addr_and_symbol(unsigned long addr, char *log_lvl)
 {
-	printk(log_lvl);
-	printk(" [<%08lx>] ", addr);
+	printk("%s [<%08lx>] ", log_lvl, addr);
 	print_symbol("%s", addr);
 	printk("\n");
 }
@@ -166,8 +165,7 @@
 		stack = (unsigned long*)context->previous_esp;
 		if (!stack)
 			break;
-		printk(log_lvl);
-		printk(" =======================\n");
+		printk("%s =======================\n", log_lvl);
 	}
 }
 
@@ -196,14 +194,12 @@
 			break;
 		if (i && ((i % 8) == 0)) {
 			printk("\n");
-			printk(log_lvl);
-			printk("       ");
+			printk("%s       ", log_lvl);
 		}
 		printk("%08lx ", *stack++);
 	}
 	printk("\n");
-	printk(log_lvl);
-	printk("Call Trace:\n");
+	printk("%sCall Trace:\n", log_lvl);
 	show_trace_log_lvl(task, esp, log_lvl);
 }
 

More merges are possible, but I'm not sure how far we want to go.

Thanks,
-- 
Jean Delvare