On Tue 2021-03-02 14:20:51, John Ogness wrote:
On 2021-03-01, Petr Mladek [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
quoted
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/nvram_64.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/nvram_64.c
index 532f22637783..5a64b24a91c2 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/nvram_64.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/nvram_64.c
@@ -681,13 +680,14 @@ static void oops_to_nvram(struct kmsg_dumper *dumper,
return;
if (big_oops_buf) {
- kmsg_dump_get_buffer(dumper, false,
+ kmsg_dump_rewind(&iter);
It would be nice to get rid of the kmsg_dump_rewind(&iter) calls
in all callers.
A solution might be to create the following in include/linux/kmsg_dump.h
Then we could do the following at the beginning of both
kmsg_dump_get_buffer() and kmsg_dump_get_line():
u64 clear_seq = latched_seq_read_nolock(&clear_seq);
if (iter->cur_seq < clear_seq)
cur_seq = clear_seq;
I suppose we need to add this part anyway, if we want to enforce that
records before @clear_seq are not to be available for dumpers.
Yup.
quoted
It might be better to avoid the infinite loop. We could do the following:
static void check_and_set_iter(struct kmsg_dump_iter)
{
if (iter->cur_seq == 0 && iter->next_seq == U64_MAX) {
kmsg_dump_rewind(iter);
}
and call this at the beginning of both kmsg_dump_get_buffer()
and kmsg_dump_get_line()
What do you think?
On a technical level, it does not make any difference. It is pure
cosmetic.
Yup.
Personally, I prefer the rewind directly before the kmsg_dump_get calls
because it puts the initializer directly next to the user.
As an example to illustrate my view, I prefer:
for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
...;
instead of:
int i = 0;
...
for (; i < n; i++)
...;
Also, I do not really like the special use of 0/U64_MAX to identify
special actions of the kmsg_dump_get functions.
Fair enough.
quoted
Note that I do not resist on it. But it might make the API easier to
use from my POV.
Since you do not resist, I will keep the API the same for v4. But I will
add the @clear_seq check to the kmsg_dump_get functions.
Go for it.
Best Regards,
Petr