[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87imbv1s0d.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 12:30:50 +0206
From: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH next v2 1/2] printk: avoid and/or handle record truncation
On 2020-09-30, Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com> wrote:
> On (20/09/30 11:07), John Ogness wrote:
>> bool prb_reserve_in_last(struct prb_reserved_entry *e, struct printk_ringbuffer *rb,
>> - struct printk_record *r, u32 caller_id);
>> + struct printk_record *r, u32 caller_id, unsigned int max_size);
>
> Isn't `max_size' always LOG_LINE_MAX?
Yes. But I still think it makes sense that it is an argument of the
function. It is quite an important setting and hard-coding it within the
ringbuffer code might lead to hidden problems later.
John Ogness
Powered by blists - more mailing lists