[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y0BClAlwfWfWcsDD@alley>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2022 17:15:32 +0200
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH printk 15/18] printk: Add struct cons_text_buf
On Sat 2022-09-24 02:10:51, John Ogness wrote:
> From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
>
> Create a data structure to replace the open coded separate buffers for
> regular and extended formatting.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Signed-off-by: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
> ---
> include/linux/console.h | 14 ++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/console.h b/include/linux/console.h
> index 8ec24fe097d3..05c7325e98f9 100644
> --- a/include/linux/console.h
> +++ b/include/linux/console.h
> @@ -173,6 +173,20 @@ enum cons_flags {
> CON_EXTENDED = BIT(6),
> };
>
> +/**
> + * struct cons_text_buf - console output text buffer
> + * @ext_text: Buffer for extended log format text
> + * @dropped_text: Buffer for dropped text
> + * @text: Buffer for ringbuffer text
> + */
> +struct cons_text_buf {
Sigh, I feel bad to nit-pick about this. It seems that you have used
"cons" everywhere in the new API so any change might be painful.
But I personally find really handful when an API is predictable
and consistent.
I see that "cons" has already been used few times in tty subsystem,
especially tty/vt and tty/hvc.
But I do not see any single "cons_" under kernel/printk/ before
this patchset. Either "console_" or "con_" prefix was
used everywhere, including CON_XXX flags.
Is there any change to change this to either "console_"
or "con_", please? Or is there any particular reason why
this new API should be distinguished by the new prefix?
> + union {
> + char ext_text[CONSOLE_EXT_LOG_MAX];
> + char dropped_text[DROPPED_TEXT_MAX];
> + };
> + char text[CONSOLE_LOG_MAX];
We should explain in the commit message why we need
the separate ext_text buffer and why it can be shared
with dropped_text buffer. Something like:
<proposal>
Create a data structure to replace the open coded separate buffers for
regular and extended formatting.
Separate @ext_text buffer is needed because info_print_ext_header()
and msg_print_ext_body() are not able to add the needed extra
information inplace.
@ext_text and @dropped_text buffer can be shared because
they are never used at the same time.
</proposal>
Also I think about using pointers instead of the hard-coded
buffer size. For example, there is no need to have
the big ext_text buffer in the kthread when the related
console does not allow to allocated the extended text.
There is actually only one console that has this enabled.
I mean something like:
struct cons_text_buf {
char *text;
char *ext_text;
char *dropped_text;
unsigned int text_size;
unsigned int ext_text_size;
unsigned int dropped_text_size;
}
We might create a helper to define static buffer:
#define DEFINE_CONS_TEXT_BUF(name) \
static char _##name##_text[CONSOLE_LOG_MAX]; \
static char _##name##_ext_text[CONSOLE_EXT_LOG_MAX]; \
static struct const_text_buf name = { \
.text = _##name##_text, \
.ext_text = _##name##_ext_text, \
.dropped_text = _##name##_ext_text, \
\
.text_size = CONSOLE_LOG_MAX; \
.ext_text_size = CONSOLE_LOG_MAX; \
.dropped_text_size = DROPPED_TEXT_MAX; \
};
Another advantage would be that it looks like a more safe way to
pass the buffer size. The existing code hardcodes CONSOLE_LOG_MAX
and CONSOLE_EXT_LOG_MAX everywhere. And it is less obvious that
the buffer and size fits together. Especially that the names
do not match (text vs. LOG_MAX and ext_text vs. EXT_LOG_MAX).
Well, this might be out of scope of this patchset. I do not resist
on it. We might do this later.
Best Regards,
Petr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists