[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aFGDhxefzuWCwOOV@pathway.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 17:02:59 +0200
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To: Thomas Weißschuh <thomas.weissschuh@...utronix.de>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
John Ogness <jogness@...utronix.de>,
David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-hardening@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] printk: ringbuffer: Add KUnit test
On Thu 2025-06-12 08:29:07, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> The KUnit test validates the correct operation of the ringbuffer.
> A separate dedicated ringbuffer is used so that the global printk
> ringbuffer is not touched.
>
> Co-developed-by: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
> Signed-off-by: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Weißschuh <thomas.weissschuh@...utronix.de>
Looks good to me:
Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Signed-off-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Best Regards,
Petr
PS: I have got an idea to count the number of failed prb_reserve()
calls. And it really failed from time to time.
I played with it and came up with two more patches. I am going
to send them tomorrow. I think that we should solve it separately
to avoid too many respins. The current patch is very good as
it is now.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists