lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Sep]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/2] printk: Fix panic caused by passing log_buf_len to command line
On Tue 2018-09-25 21:01:35, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (09/21/18 09:37), Petr Mladek wrote:
> >
> > I would personally keep the size as unsigned int. IMHO, a support
> > for a log buffer bigger than 4GB is not worth the complexity.
> >
>
> ftrace dumps are bothering me.
>
> Steven Rostedt wrote [0]:
> >
> > Especially when I have a machine with 240 CPUs. But it also has a ton of
> > RAM, I could easily do log_buf_len=32G
> >
>
> The systems are getting bigger, so log_buf_len=UINT_MAX+ might become
> a norm at some point.

Thanks for pointing this out. Well, it seems that the change would
require a new syscall to pass the buffer size as long. We need to
be sure that people would use this in the real life.

This thread suggested this change to avoid a checkpatch warning.
The 32GB was mentioned as an example one year ego. This is not enough
for a new syscall from my point of view.

Best Regards,
Petr

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-09-25 14:24    [W:0.124 / U:0.088 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site