On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, J.E.J. Bottomley wrote:
> OK, what about the runtime warning with no requirement for a special flag to
> enable attachment.
That certainly works for me - informational but not irritating. I just
suspect it will scroll past without being seen that much, though.
But along with a stack_dump() or something to make it a bit more
noticeable it might actually be visible.
> I don't necessarily agree. It's easy to miss in all the build noise (most
> average users don't do make -s). And the warning isn't that fierce (it
> complains about a prototype mismatch), so even if it's noticed, it might get
> ignored. At least if we have a run time warning, it's in the logs for all to
> see when a problem gets posted to any given mailing list.
I dunno - I personally think more people look at the compile output than
at the dmessages when they scroll past. But maybe it's just me (I don't
use -s, but I tend to do "make -j4 bzImage > ../makes", so the _only_
thing I see are warnings and errors).
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 15 2002 - 22:00:20 EST