Re: [PATCH] x86 NUMA panic compile error

Andrew Morton
2006-05-15T19:57:03Z

Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> wrote:
>
>
> [... feels the love ...]

heh.

> On Monday 15 May 2006 21:39, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> > >
> > > Nevertheless for hard-to-debug bugs i prefer if they can be reproduced
> > > and debugged on 32-bit too, because x86_64 debugging is still quite a
> > > PITA and wastes alot of time: for example it has no support for exact
> > > kernel stacktraces. Also, the printout of the backtrace is butt-ugly and
> > > as un-ergonomic to the human eye as it gets
> >
> > Yes, I find x86_64 traces significantly harder to follow. And I miss the
> > display of the length of the functions (do_md_run+1208 instead of
> > do_md_run+1208/2043). The latter form makes it easier to work out
> > whereabouts in the function things happened.
> >
> > That, plus the mix of hex and decimal numbers..
> >
> > > who came up with that
> > > "two-maybe-one function entries per-line" nonsense? [Whoever did it he
> > > never had to look at (and make sense of) hundreds of stacktraces in a
> > > row.]
> >
> > Plus they're wide enough to get usefully wordwrapped when someone mails
> > them to you.
>
> Hmm, I didn't realize they were _that_ unpopular. If you got the i386
> like space wasting backtraces would you guys all switch your development machines
> to x86-64 ? @)
>

Developers use serial consoles for such things. (I discovered
`console=uart,...' yesterday. It works nicely as an earlyprintk on ia64..)

It's reports-from-the-field which are the problem.

A lot of these problems can be address by simple cranking up the VGA screen
resolution, but I discovered that I don't know how to do that - I've always
used `vga=extended', but that doesn't work on an EFI-booted ia64 box.

Does anyone know what the magic option is to make the vga console use 50
rows?