[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101110172528.GB5360@nowhere>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 18:25:30 +0100
From: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
ying.huang@...el.com, bp@...en8.de, tglx@...utronix.de,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mchehab@...hat.com,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...hat.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC/Requirements/Design] h/w error reporting
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 11:52:40AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 16:30 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > As for the buffer, I prefer a u64 aligned data stream, but the very
> > least I need is frame encapsulation. What I don't want _ever_ is stupid
> > sub-buffers. And no they're not needed, see the discussion about sync
> > markers a while back.
>
> BTW, the sub buffers is just an implementation detail. I suspect that
> we'll have to end up with something that splits the buffer up. Whether
> we have 'markers' or something else. They all break down the buffer into
> a "sub-buffer".
If the size of the sub-buffers are tunable (all the same size inside a
whole buffer, but that size is tunable), then someone who doesn't want
to use subbuffers can just use a single big subbuffer :)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists