Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>
To:     Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>
Cc:     Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH next v2 1/2] printk: avoid and/or handle record truncation
In-Reply-To: <20200930094316.GB987@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
References: <20200930090134.8723-1-john.ogness@linutronix.de> <20200930090134.8723-2-john.ogness@linutronix.de> <20200930094316.GB987@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
Date:   Wed, 30 Sep 2020 12:30:50 +0206
Message-ID: <87imbv1s0d.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On 2020-09-30, Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com> wrote:
> On (20/09/30 11:07), John Ogness wrote:
>>  bool prb_reserve_in_last(struct prb_reserved_entry *e, struct printk_ringbuffer *rb,
>> -			 struct printk_record *r, u32 caller_id);
>> +			 struct printk_record *r, u32 caller_id, unsigned int max_size);
>
> Isn't `max_size' always LOG_LINE_MAX?

Yes. But I still think it makes sense that it is an argument of the
function. It is quite an important setting and hard-coding it within the
ringbuffer code might lead to hidden problems later.

John Ogness