Re: [PATCH] sched/core: Drop debugging leftover trace_printk call

Juri Lelli
2015-04-07T14:18:27Z

On 07/04/15 14:56, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Apr 2015 14:47:50 +0100
> Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@arm.com> wrote:
>
>> On 03/04/2015 09:42, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>>> From: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
>>>
>>> Commit
>>>
>>> 3c18d447b3b3 ("sched/core: Check for available DL bandwidth in cpuset_cpu_inactive()")
>>>
>>> forgot a trace_printk debugging piece in and Steve's banner blew in
>>> dmesg. Remove it.
>>>
>>
>> Argh! Sorry about that! Shame on me, I didn't pay much attention to
>> Rostedt's banner because I was working on several fixes at once :(.
>
> Right, but it lets other people notice it :-)
>

Sure, that was entirely my fault not having paid attention to it :/.
And it might stayed there for a while if the banner wasn't there.

>
>
>> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
>> index d124359..1fc454c5 100755
>> --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
>> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
>> @@ -3257,6 +3257,12 @@ sub process {
>> "Prefer printk_ratelimited or pr_<level>_ratelimited to printk_ratelimit\n" . $herecurr);
>> }
>>
>> +# check for uses of trace_printk
>> + if ($line =~ /\btrace_printk\s*\(/) {
>> + ERROR("TRACE_PRINTK",
>> + "Never use trace_printk in production code!\n" . $herecurr);
>> + }
>> +
>
> if you want to be robust here. You probably want to make an exception
> when the code is in kernel/trace/ because "trace_printk" in patches
> there would be to fix the trace_printk implementation, and not its use.
>

Oh, right. I'll try to follow-up with a v2 addressing Joe's comments as
well.

Thanks a lot,

- Juri

> -- Steve
>
>
>> # printk should use KERN_* levels. Note that follow on printk's on the
>> # same line do not need a level, so we use the current block context
>> # to try and find and validate the current printk. In summary the current
>