[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200709122448.GJ4751@alley>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2020 14:25:35 +0200
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Andrea Parri <parri.andrea@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>, kexec@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lkp@...ts.01.org
Subject: Re: [printk] 18a2dc6982: ltp.kmsg01.fail
On Thu 2020-07-09 13:23:07, John Ogness wrote:
> On 2020-07-09, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com> wrote:
> > I though more about it. IMHO, it will be better to modify
> > prb_first_seq() to do the same cycle as prb_next_seq()
> > and return seq number of the first valid entry.
>
> Exactly!
>
> Here is a patch that does just that. I added a prb_first_valid_seq()
> function and made prb_first_seq() static. (The ringbuffer still needs
> prb_first_seq() for itself.)
The fix looks fine to me:
Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
It means that we have two fixes on top of the original patchset. Could
you please send v5 with the two fixes integrated? I would just squash
them into the 4th patch.
Best Regards,
Petr
PS: I know that I am hurrying maybe too much at the moment.
Well, I will have vacation last two week in July. I think that this is
in good enough state for linux-next and I would like to have it there
at least few days before I leave.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists