Subject : [OOPS] 2.6.39.x latencytop Submitter : Andrew Watts <akwatts@ymail.com> Date : 2011-06-14 17:07 Message-ID : 80098.5633.qm@web111013.mail.gq1.yahoo.com References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=130807128506490&w=2 This entry is being used for tracking a regression from 2.6.38. Please don't close it until the problem is fixed in the mainline.
This is't an OOPS, it is a WARNING... As far as I see, the corresponding code looks like: WARN_ONCE(1, "tracing_enabled is deprecated. Use tracing_on"); Does this indeed turn up in your dmesg? latencytop should probably do a s/\btracing_enabled\b/tracing_on/ in it's fsync.c file.
It is indeed a warning not an oops. I get it in my syslog logfile which means it is kernel.warn or higher. Please note the separately-filed bug report at (bug #37652) as well as Steven Rostedt's comments.
Ah yes. Thanks for the reference. I just send Arjan a patch for latencytop, though I don't really understand the need for this renaming.
On Sunday, July 10, 2011, Pekka Enberg wrote: > On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote: > > This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report > > of regressions introduced between 2.6.38 and 2.6.39. > > > > The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions > > introduced between 2.6.38 and 2.6.39. Please verify if it still should > > be listed and let the tracking team know (either way). > > > > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38132 > > Subject : [Warning] 2.6.39.x latencytop > > Submitter : Andrew Watts <akwatts@ymail.com> > > Date : 2011-06-14 17:07 (27 days old) > > Message-ID : <80098.5633.qm@web111013.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> > > References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=130807128506490&w=2 > > This is a WARN_ON added in commit 6752ab4a ("tracing: Deprecate > tracing_enabled for tracing_on") that lets the user know about > deprecated ABI. It's somewhat unfortunate that there's no mention in > the changelog if everyone agreed on the deprecation or not... > > That said, assuming the deprecation is OK (hi Steven, Frederic, Ingo!) > I think this issue can be closed.
*** Bug 37652 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***