[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20211026164343.2e1754bd@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2021 16:43:43 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@...too.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com,
rjohnson@...italocean.com,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] tracing: show size of requested buffer
On Thu, 7 Oct 2021 09:23:58 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Oct 2021 09:11:51 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> > > > +++ b/kernel/trace/trace_event_perf.c
> > > > @@ -400,7 +400,8 @@ void *perf_trace_buf_alloc(int size, struct pt_regs **regs, int *rctxp)
> > > > BUILD_BUG_ON(PERF_MAX_TRACE_SIZE % sizeof(unsigned long));
> > > >
> > > > if (WARN_ONCE(size > PERF_MAX_TRACE_SIZE,
> > > > - "perf buffer not large enough"))
> > > > + "perf buffer not large enough, wanted %d, have %d",
> > > > + size, PERF_MAX_TRACE_SIZE))
> >
> > Priting a constant seems daft.. why is any of this important in any way?
>
> I see your point, but it can be useful if you changed it, and want to know
> if you are running the kernel with the change or not.
>
> I've done daft things were I changed a const and was running a kernel
> without the change and couldn't understand why it wasn't working ;-)
Peter,
Do you have any real issue if I just take this patch set through my tree?
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists