Re: [PATCH] drivers/base/power: be more verbose in device_pm_add()

[Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de>]

On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 06:50:37PM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 09:45:27AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 02:17:14PM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote:
> > > If a parentless device was added during a PM transaction, developers
> > > might want to know which device caused the troube. Hence, output the
> > > kobject's name in this case.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Mack <daniel@caiaq.de>
> > > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>
> > > Cc: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
> > > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>
> > > Cc: Magnus Damm <damm@igel.co.jp>
> > > Cc: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
> > > Cc: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@oracle.com>
> > > Cc: linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/base/power/main.c |    2 +-
> > >  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/base/power/main.c b/drivers/base/power/main.c
> > > index 941fcb8..9e9fe6a 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/base/power/main.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/base/power/main.c
> > > @@ -98,7 +98,7 @@ void device_pm_add(struct device *dev)
> > >  		 * transition is in progress in order to avoid leaving them
> > >  		 * unhandled down the road
> > >  		 */
> > > -		dev_WARN(dev, "Parentless device registered during a PM transaction\n");
> > > +		dev_WARN(dev, "Parentless device registered during a PM transaction: %s\n", kobject_name(&dev->kobj));
> > 
> > Doesn'tthe dev_WARN call already print the name of the device?  Why
> > print it twice?
> 
> Erm, no it didn't. Should it have? This is what I saw:
> 
> [    0.880646] Parentless device registered during a PM transaction

You should have gotten more information than just that single line,
right?  Like a full backtrace to the driver that did the offending
thing?

It should also have had a "Device: 'device_name_here'" on the line
before this one, right?

Can you send the full output that happened here?

thanks,

greg k-h