From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751353AbZKNUoa (ORCPT ); Sat, 14 Nov 2009 15:44:30 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751160AbZKNUoa (ORCPT ); Sat, 14 Nov 2009 15:44:30 -0500 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.123]:53738 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751055AbZKNUo3 (ORCPT ); Sat, 14 Nov 2009 15:44:29 -0500 Subject: Re: + recordmcount-stfu.patch added to -mm tree From: Steven Rostedt Reply-To: rostedt@goodmis.org To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Andrew Morton , lihong.hi@gmail.com, LKML In-Reply-To: <20091114092718.GA10969@elte.hu> References: <200911140356.nAE3utfU001939@imap1.linux-foundation.org> <1258174705.22249.236.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> <20091113212645.3956bc85.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1258176822.22249.239.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> <20091114092718.GA10969@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Kihon Technologies Inc. Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 15:44:26 -0500 Message-Id: <1258231467.22249.438.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2009-11-14 at 10:27 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 21:26 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > > > Dunno, really. How many people are running old objdump, and do we > > > want to retard the rate at which the stragglers will upgrade? > > > > I guess not, but by printing out a warning > > 1000000000000000000000000000 times per build, it may encourage them to > > upgrade ;-) > > If that binutils version is still supported this is not the right > method. People are in their full rights to be at any version within the > supported versions interval, and we should not 'force' them. It's not forcing them. The patch I posted gave a way to disable that warning. But I agree with Andrew, the correct approach is to have it warn just once. The posted patch was just an easier approach. -- Steve