[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181204025614.GC7580@jagdpanzerIV>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 11:56:14 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] printk: don't unconditionally shortcut print_time()
On (12/02/18 14:02), Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>
> @@ -1541,11 +1545,13 @@ int do_syslog(int type, char __user *buf, int len, int source)
> } else {
> u64 seq = syslog_seq;
> u32 idx = syslog_idx;
> + bool f = syslog_partial ? syslog_time : printk_time;
^^^^^^
> while (seq < log_next_seq) {
> struct printk_log *msg = log_from_idx(idx);
>
> - error += msg_print_text(msg, true, NULL, 0);
> + error += msg_print_text(msg, true, f, NULL, 0);
^^^^
> + f = printk_time;
^^^
> idx = log_next(idx);
> seq++;
Can we please have something better than 'f'?
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists