[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 17:13:27 +0100
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Calvin Owens <calvinowens@...com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv7 5/8] printk: report lost messages in printk safe/nmi
contexts
On Thu 2017-02-02 09:34:09, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 11:02:57 +0900
> Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > On (02/01/17 11:37), Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > > This looks fine, but I'm curious if you tested it. That is, added a
> > > bunch of printks to overflow the buffer. IIRC, I did it to the original
> > > nmi code. If you haven't you may want to just to make sure it works. I
> > > can also test it too if I get some time.
I have tested it and actually found a bug. I was lucky because it was
a cornercase. It is already fixed upstream by the commit
4a998e322abc935e ("printk/NMI: fix up handling of the full nmi
log buffer").
> Please note how you tested it in your change log. It's not really a
> requirement, and you don't really have to do it. But it helps people
> have warm fuzzies about the code. I'm trying to do this in the future
> in my own work too.
Goot to know.
Best Regards,
Petr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists