From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io0-f197.google.com (mail-io0-f197.google.com [209.85.223.197]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55CE46B0006 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 13:13:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-io0-f197.google.com with SMTP id e9so1016878ioj.18 for ; Thu, 15 Mar 2018 10:13:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtprelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0032.hostedemail.com. [216.40.44.32]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k21si647975iti.146.2018.03.15.10.13.48 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 15 Mar 2018 10:13:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1521134022.22221.38.camel@perches.com> Subject: Re: rfc: remove print_vma_addr ? (was Re: [PATCH 00/16] remove eight obsolete architectures) From: Joe Perches Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 10:13:42 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20180315170830.GA17574@bombadil.infradead.org> References: <20180314143529.1456168-1-arnd@arndb.de> <2929.1521106970@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <1521133006.22221.35.camel@perches.com> <20180315170830.GA17574@bombadil.infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , David Howells , Arnd Bergmann , Linux-Arch , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-input@vger.kernel.org, netdev , linux-wireless , Linux PWM List , linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org, linux-spi , USB list , DRI Development , Linux Fbdev development list , Linux Watchdog Mailing List , Linux FS Devel , Linux MM On Thu, 2018-03-15 at 10:08 -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 09:56:46AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote: > > I have a patchset that creates a vsprintf extension for > > print_vma_addr and removes all the uses similar to the > > print_symbol() removal. > > > > This now avoids any possible printk interleaving. > > > > Unfortunately, without some #ifdef in vsprintf, which > > I would like to avoid, it increases the nommu kernel > > size by ~500 bytes. > > > > Anyone think this is acceptable? [] > This doesn't feel like a huge win since it's only called ~once per > architecture. I'd be more excited if it made the printing of the whole > thing standardised; eg we have a print_fault() function in mm/memory.c > which takes a suitable set of arguments. Sure but perhaps that's not feasible as the surrounding output is per-arch specific. What could be a standardized fault message here?