[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3908561D78D1C84285E8C5FCA982C28F192F5F26@ORSMSX104.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 17:11:36 +0000
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
To: Kay Sievers <kay@...y.org>,
Anton Vorontsov <anton.vorontsov@...aro.org>
CC: Greg Kroah-Hartmann <greg@...ah.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH RESEND 1/3] printk: convert byte-buffer to
variable-length record buffer
+/*
+ * Fill the provided buffer with as many of the the *youngest* kmsg records
+ * that fit into it. Repeated calls will fill the buffer with the next block
+ * of older records, not including the former ones. A return value of FALSE
+ * indicate that all records are read, including the oldest one.
+ */
I confess to not reading all of this ... but does this handle the pstore/OOPS
case? We'll use this call to pull as many records as will fit in the pstore
error record ... but almost certainly won't pull all of the console log, so
we won't see the FALSE return.
The system keeps on running.
Now another OOPS happens and pstore wants to grab the new "youngest" records,
it doesn't want to continue stepping to older records from the place it got
to on the first OOPS. Will that work?
-Tony
Powered by blists - more mailing lists