[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181009084241.tlmsjxnyxf4zx2fh@pathway.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 10:42:41 +0200
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dmitriy Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/3] printk: do not preliminary split up cont buffer
On Tue 2018-10-02 11:38:36, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> We have a proper 'overflow' check which tells us that we need to
> split up existing cont buffer in separate records:
>
> if (cont.len + len > sizeof(cont.buf))
> cont_flush();
>
> At the same time we also have one extra flush: "if cont buffer is
> 80% full then split it up" in cont_add():
>
> if (cont.len > (sizeof(cont.buf) * 80) / 100)
> cont_flush();
>
> This looks to be redundant, since the existing "overflow" check
> should work just fine, so remove this 80% check and wait for either
> a normal cont termination \n, for preliminary flush due to
> possible buffer overflow or for preliminary flush due to cont race.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
I wonder if this check ever triggered ;-) It is a nice clean up:
Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Best Regards,
Petr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists