[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1340968718.16702.98.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 07:18:38 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Kay Sievers <kay@...y.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] printk: Have printk() never buffer its data
On Fri, 2012-06-29 at 01:30 -0400, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>
> > I wonder if it would be better to do the following for the above two
> > ifs:
> >
> > if (cont.len && cont.owner == current) {
> > if (!prefix)
> > stored = cont_add(facility, level, text, text_len);
> > cont_flush();
> > }
> >
> > If the prefix was true, then the cont.flush would be set when cont_add()
> > is called, and the first thing that cont_add() does:
> >
> > if (cont.len && cont.flushed)
> > return false;
> >
> > which would always be true (returning false) if prefix was set.
> >
> > And the second cont_flush() is a nop due to it doing:
> >
> > if (cont.flushed)
> > return;
>
> It might be "better", and this would be a nice optimization, but is it
> needed right now? In other words, I'd like to get this patch into
> linux-next soon to get testing to get to Linus before 3.5-final comes
> out, don't you?
Sure, pull it as is, and you can add my Tested-by, and Acked-by tags
(Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>).
I'll send you a patch to do this update that you can queue for 3.6.
OK?
-- Steve
--
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