On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Davidlohr Bueso <davidl...@hp.com> wrote: > On Fri, 2014-06-13 at 11:28 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c >> index 7228258..3f3356b 100644 >> --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c >> +++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c >> @@ -246,6 +246,7 @@ static u32 clear_idx; >> #define LOG_ALIGN __alignof__(struct printk_log) >> #endif >> #define __LOG_BUF_LEN (1 << CONFIG_LOG_BUF_SHIFT) >> +#define __LOG_CPU_MIN_BUF_LEN (1 << CONFIG_LOG_CPU_MIN_BUF_SHIFT) >> static char __log_buf[__LOG_BUF_LEN] __aligned(LOG_ALIGN); >> static char *log_buf = __log_buf; >> static u32 log_buf_len = __LOG_BUF_LEN; >> @@ -752,6 +753,17 @@ void __init setup_log_buf(int early) >> unsigned long flags; >> char *new_log_buf; >> int free; >> + int cpu_extra = (num_possible_cpus() - 1) * __LOG_CPU_MIN_BUF_LEN; > > I think you forgot to drop the - 1 here.
Actually that was on purpose as I had noticed in your suggestion on the other thread to fix the minimum number of CPUs required for this patch to be > 64 rather than >= 64 (with the defaults of 18 for log shift, and 12 for min cpu log shift). Minor difference, but it was intentional. Even though we do require SMP now the -1 can take effect, and it seems safer for now to only require this for > 64 CPU configurations for the defaults set. I'm happy to remove that as well, but bumping the CPU configuration mark for this to > 64 might be better for starters unless we do know for sure we also need this for 64. Luis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
