On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 4:01 AM Yoann Congal <yoann.congal@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Le 11/02/2024 à 00:41, Masahiro Yamada a écrit : > > On Thu, Feb 8, 2024 at 2:10 AM Yoann Congal <yoann.congal@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> LOG_CPU_MAX_BUF_SHIFT default value depends on BASE_SMALL: > >> config LOG_CPU_MAX_BUF_SHIFT > >> default 12 if !BASE_SMALL > >> default 0 if BASE_SMALL > >> But, BASE_SMALL is a config of type int and "!BASE_SMALL" is always > >> evaluated to true whatever is the value of BASE_SMALL. > >> > >> This patch fixes this by using the correct conditional operator for int > >> type : BASE_SMALL != 0. > >> > >> Note: This changes CONFIG_LOG_CPU_MAX_BUF_SHIFT=12 to > >> CONFIG_LOG_CPU_MAX_BUF_SHIFT=0 for BASE_SMALL defconfigs, but that will > >> not be a big impact due to this code in kernel/printk/printk.c: > >> /* by default this will only continue through for large > 64 CPUs */ > >> if (cpu_extra <= __LOG_BUF_LEN / 2) > >> return; > >> Systems using CONFIG_BASE_SMALL and having 64+ CPUs should be quite > >> rare. > >> > >> John Ogness <john.ogness@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (printk reviewer) wrote: > >>> For printk this will mean that BASE_SMALL systems were probably > >>> previously allocating/using the dynamic ringbuffer and now they will > >>> just continue to use the static ringbuffer. Which is fine and saves > >>> memory (as it should). > >> > >> Petr Mladek <pmladek@xxxxxxxx> (printk maintainer) wrote: > >>> More precisely, it allocated the buffer dynamically when the sum > >>> of per-CPU-extra space exceeded half of the default static ring > >>> buffer. This happened for systems with more than 64 CPUs with > >>> the default config values. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Yoann Congal <yoann.congal@xxxxxxxx> > >> Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAMuHMdWm6u1wX7efZQf=2XUAHascps76YQac6rdnQGhc8nop_Q@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > >> Reported-by: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/f6856be8-54b7-0fa0-1d17-39632bf29ada@xxxxxxxxxx/ > >> Fixes: 4e244c10eab3 ("kconfig: remove unneeded symbol_empty variable") > >> > > > > > > > > All the Reviewed-by tags are dropped every time, annoyingly. > > Hi! > > Was I supposed to gather these tags from patch version N to patch version N+1? > In that case, I'm sorry, I did not know that :-/ > Patch 1/3 is exactly the same but patch 2/3 is equivalent but different. Is there a rule written somewhere about when carrying the tags across revision and when not? (I could not find it) I do not know any written rules either. In my experience, people carry tags when changes since the previous version are small. -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
