Messages in this thread | | | From | Joel Fernandes <> | Date | Fri, 1 Jul 2022 12:37:35 -0400 | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] Trace events to pstore |
| |
On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 3:48 PM Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote: > > On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 21:25:11 -0400 > Joel Fernandes <joel@joelfernandes.org> wrote: > > > Hi Rob, > > (Back from holidays, digging through the email pile). Reply below: > > What ever happen to this? > > Sorry, I was expecting more replies, and when there was nothing, it got > lost in my inbox. > [...] > > > From a DT standpoint, we already have a reserved persistent RAM > > > binding too. There's already too much kernel specifics on how it is > > > used, we don't need more of that in DT. We're not going to add another > > > separate region (actually, you can have as many regions defined as you > > > want. They will just all be 'ramoops' compatible). > > > > I agree with the sentiment here on DT. Maybe the DT can be generalized > > to provide a ram region to which either ramoops or ramtrace can > > attach. > > Right, > > Perhaps just remove patch 7, but still have the ramoops work move forward?
This was an internship project submission which stalled after the internship ended, I imagine Nachammai has moved on to doing other things since.
I am curious how this came on your radar after 2 years, did someone tell you to prioritize improving performance of ftrace on pstore? I could probably make time to work on it more if someone has a usecase for this or something.
Thanks,
- Joel
| |