Hi Ramon, On 27 May 2018 at 02:35, Ramon Fried <ramon.fr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 1:18 AM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: >> Hi Ramon, >> >> On 26 May 2018 at 00:05, Ramon Fried <ramon.fr...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 5:07 AM, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote: >>>> Hi Ramon, >>>> >>>> On 25 May 2018 at 04:41, Ramon Fried <ramon.fr...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> When the buffer is full, there supposed to be no more >>>>> writes, the code however misses the else statement and >>>>> subsequently writes to arbitrary pointer location and increases >>>>> the offset. >>>> >>>> I don't think so. It writes to a local variable in this case. The >>>> point of this is to detect how much space would be needed to hold the >>>> I/O trace. Unless the pointer is incremented, there is no way to know. >>> You're right. I missed the initial assignment to rec. >>> >>>> >>>> Perhaps instead, iotrace_get_buffer() should be updated to also return >>>> the number of valid records, as well as the pointer value? >>>> >>> It's a valid option, another one I have in mind is that >>> we can return immediately like I suggested but add one time warning >>> that states that the >>> buffer is full ? >> >> The problem is that people want to be able to resize the buffer so >> that they can try again, so they need to know the correct size. >> >> Can you make it report that it overflowed, and print the correct size? > The correct size can only be printed in the end of the tracing. > Maybe we can use WARN_ONCE when it first occurs and later when the user > type "iotrace stats" it will state the required buffer size to > accommodate all of the > entries. > What do you think ?
Sounds good to me. Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
