[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJhHMCAS=_f9C=CpFhpbCt1Jg63hhecbZzSqJN-+VeH=ajfanw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 17:09:09 -0400
From: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@...il.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Cc: Josh Triplett <josh@...edesktop.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>,
Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Iulia Manda <iulia.manda21@...il.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] rcutorture: fixes for printing message buffer
On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 4:37 PM, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-07-11 at 16:30 -0400, Pranith Kumar wrote:
>> Use snprintf() instead of sprintf() for writing to the message buffer.
>> Also use vmalloc() for the allocation of the message buffer. Since pr_alert() is
>> limited to print LOG_LINE_MAX characters at a time, we print the buffer in a
>> loop one line at a time.
>>
>> I tested this using the parse-torture.sh script as follows:
>
> Did you see the patch I sent you?
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/6/20/604
>
> It doesn't need a vmalloc.
> What is wrong with that approach?
>
>
I was trying to stay as close to the original code as possible by
using a buffer instead of using pr_alert/pr_cont throughout the code.
I see nothing wrong with what you proposed, but I like having one
pr_alert instead of lots sprinkled. Also avoiding vmalloc/vfree using
your approach seems like a win.
I will let Paul decide.
--
Pranith
--
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