[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <A5ED84D3BB3A384992CBB9C77DEDA4D401C31F@USINDEM103.corp.hds.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 20:58:02 +0000
From: Seiji Aguchi <seiji.aguchi@....com>
To: Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>,
"Matthew Garrett (mjg@...hat.com)" <mjg@...hat.com>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Luck, Tony (tony.luck@...el.com)" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"mikew@...gle.com" <mikew@...gle.com>,
"dle-develop@...ts.sourceforge.net"
<dle-develop@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
Satoru Moriya <satoru.moriya@....com>
Subject: RE: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] write callback: Check if existing entry is
erasable
> I understand the above scenario and was the one of was thinking of when I replied. My counter argument is if the NVRAM isn't big
> enough to hold more than two panics, then the logs are too big.
>
> This stuff should be designed to easily accomodate multiple logs (like say 6 or so), then the above situation doesn't matter.
>
> I just feel this is adding complexity to something that shouldn't need it.
>
I see. I understand your argument right now.
My patch is on assumption that efi_pstore can handle just one log.
But if it can handle multiple logs, we can solve my concern simply.
Default value of pstore.kmsg_byte is 10KB.
I think efi_pstore can log 60KB(= 10KB X 6)...
Original code is developed by Matthew and he is EFI expert.
So, I have to ask Matthew why current write callback simply erases old entries.
Matthew,
Do you think efI_pstore should handle just one log? Or do you think latest message is most important?
--
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