Kernel Bug Tracker – Bug 38132
[Warning] 2.6.39.x latencytop
Last modified: 2011-07-10 12:41:55 UTC
Subject : [OOPS] 2.6.39.x latencytop
Submitter : Andrew Watts <email@example.com>
Date : 2011-06-14 17:07
Message-ID : firstname.lastname@example.org
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 <email@example.com> 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > Date : 2011-06-14 17:07 (27 days old)
> > Message-ID : <email@example.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. ***