Re: [PATCH 0/5] [RFC] printk/ia64/ppc64/parisc64: let's deprecate %pF/%pf printk specifiers
From: Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>
Date: 2017-09-19 14:07:52
Also in:
lkml
On 19.09.2017 04:05, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
On (09/18/17 20:39), Helge Deller wrote:quoted
I did tried your testcases [on parisc] too.
...
quoted
and here is "modprobe zram": printk#7 __UNIQUE_ID_vermagic8+0xb9a4/0xbd04 [zram] printk#8 __UNIQUE_ID_vermagic8+0xb9a4/0xbd04 [zram] printk#9 do_one_initcall+0x194/0x290 printk#10 do_one_initcall+0x194/0x290 printk#11 do_one_initcall+0x194/0x290 printk#12 do_one_initcall+0x194/0x290 printk#13 zram_init+0x22c/0x2a0 [zram] printk#14 zram_init+0x22c/0x2a0 [zram] printk#15 zram_init+0x22c/0x2a0 [zram] printk#16 zram_init+0x22c/0x2a0 [zram] I wonder why printk#7 and printk#8 don't show "zram_init"...interesting... what does the unpatched kernel show?
Really strange. The unpatched kernel shows __UNIQUE_ID_vermagic8+0xb9a4/0xbd04 too. The symbol should be known, because later on in printk13 it shows correctly zram_init. I'll need to dig deeper into it, but at least the regression is not due to your patch. Helge