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;
Date:   Fri, 8 Oct 2021 18:13:48 -0400
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To:     "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@gentoo.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
        rjohnson@digitalocean.com,
        Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] tracing: show size of requested buffer
Message-ID: <20211008181348.4c2488b7@gandalf.local.home>
In-Reply-To: <robbat2-20211007T172058-955036195Z@orbis-terrarum.net>
References: <20210831043723.13481-1-robbat2@gentoo.org>
        <20210907212426.73ed81d1@rorschach.local.home>
        <20211007071151.GL174703@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
        <20211007092358.65152792@gandalf.local.home>
        <robbat2-20211007T172058-955036195Z@orbis-terrarum.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 7 Oct 2021 17:26:04 +0000
"Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@gentoo.org> wrote:

> I was trying to think further what would make sense for the constant.
> - What are the negative impacts of a too-large value?
> - Is there demand for more reconfigurability? 
> - Should PERF_MAX_TRACE_SIZE be a knob in Kconfig?

One thing you haven't discussed was, have you hit this warning, and if so,
what were you doing?

-- Steve