[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200709130758.GB4380@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2020 22:07:58 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
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 (20/07/09 14:25), Petr Mladek wrote:
> 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:
Yeah, looks right to me as well.
> 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.
I'd prefer v5, if possible.
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists