From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755440Ab1KWNQj (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Nov 2011 08:16:39 -0500 Received: from mail-vw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.212.46]:37290 "EHLO mail-vw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754454Ab1KWNQi (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Nov 2011 08:16:38 -0500 Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 14:16:28 +0100 From: Frederic Weisbecker To: Johannes Berg Cc: Steven Rostedt , Christoph Hellwig , LKML , Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] printk: add console output tracing Message-ID: <20111123131622.GA10669@somewhere.redhat.com> References: <1321473443.4181.38.camel@frodo> <1321478719.4502.20.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <20111117145502.GA18437@somewhere> <1321541877.3997.31.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <20111117150040.GB18437@somewhere> <1321543268.3997.40.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <20111118184401.GA24787@somewhere.redhat.com> <1321641975.10266.73.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> <20111118185449.GB24787@somewhere.redhat.com> <1321642752.10266.75.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1321642752.10266.75.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 07:59:12PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Fri, 2011-11-18 at 19:54 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 07:46:15PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > On Fri, 2011-11-18 at 19:44 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > > > > > > +TRACE_EVENT_CONDITION(console, > > > > > + TP_PROTO(const char *log_buf, unsigned start, unsigned end, > > > > > + unsigned log_buf_len), > > > > > + > > > > > + TP_ARGS(log_buf, start, end, log_buf_len), > > > > > + > > > > > + TP_CONDITION(start != end), > > > > > + > > > > > + TP_STRUCT__entry( > > > > > + __dynamic_array(char, msg, > > > > > + ((end - start + log_buf_len) & > > > > > + (log_buf_len - 1)) + 1) > > > > > > > > Is all that care about log_buf_len necessary? It seems that > > > > printk ensures that log_end - con_start never exceeds log_buf_len, > > > > looking at emit_log_char() > > > > > > I think it is. The buffer can wrap around so in that case end < start, > > > which just end-start won't handle here. > > > > Even if it wraps, end - start should always give a positive result. > > > > We have that check in call_console_drivers(): > > > > BUG_ON(((int)(start - end)) > 0) > > That's .. confusing, start - end > 0 <=> start > end ?? Yeah. Both are unsigned, so converting the result into an int and getting a positive value means we have wrapped INT_MAX. > > Also, call_console_drivers() doesn't pass this start/end through to > _call_console_drivers(), it has loops and stuff there... Yeah but looking at the loop there, start and end passed to __call_console_drivers() are bounded between start and end passed to call_console_drivers(). > > In any case -- feel free to clean it all up, I basically copied the > logic from _call_console_drivers assuming it was needed. I'm just reviewing and suggesting a way to keep the patch more simple. Outside that, I don't really need that patch myself ;) > I don't really want to know about the printk details :-) Well, it's like working out outside in winter. It may not sound very entertaining in the beginning but then it quickly becomes invigorating, toning and good for the mood...I think...