Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754418AbaFRSbt (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:31:49 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:49599 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754210AbaFRSbs (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:31:48 -0400 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 20:31:45 +0200 From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" To: Petr =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ml=E1dek?= Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" , hpa@linux.intel.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Michal Hocko , Joe Perches , Arun KS , Kees Cook , Davidlohr Bueso , Chris Metcalf Subject: Re: [RFT v5h printk: allow increasing the ring buffer depending on the number of CPUs Message-ID: <20140618183145.GM4841@wotan.suse.de> References: <1402965464-11202-1-git-send-email-mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> <20140617145200.GA634@pathway.suse.cz> <20140618001816.GK4841@wotan.suse.de> <20140618083102.GF634@pathway.suse.cz> <20140618105926.GL4841@wotan.suse.de> <20140618142144.GH634@pathway.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20140618142144.GH634@pathway.suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 04:21:45PM +0200, Petr Ml?dek wrote: > On Wed 2014-06-18 12:59:26, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:31:02AM +0200, Petr Ml?dek wrote: > > > On Wed 2014-06-18 02:18:16, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > I am happy with this solution. And I agree that it is better to split > > > log_buf_len_align() in a separate patch as you suggested in the other > > > mail. > > > > OK just to be on safe side I noticed memblock_virt_alloc() and > > memblock_virt_alloc_nopanic() allow passing an explicit alignment > > requirement, traced back the orignal code with no good reason to > > not use the LOG_ALIGN, so I think using that would be the safest > > thing to do. Will roll that into the first patch, curious if the > > folks that ran into the alignment issues on ARM could reproduce > > an align barf without this on some situations, perhaps not because > > of the power of 2 thing and since the min value for LOG_BUF_SHIFT > > is 12. > > Great catch. It makes sense to me. There is no reason to have aligned > stores when the buffer itself is not properly aligned. > > IMHO, it would make sense to have separate patch for this change. It might be > candidate for stable releases. OK thanks for the review and all your help, I'll split that up into another patch, so it'll be 3 total. Luis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/