On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 04:21:45PM +0200, Petr Mládek wrote: > On Wed 2014-06-18 12:59:26, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:31:02AM +0200, Petr Mládek wrote: > > > On Wed 2014-06-18 02:18:16, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > > I am happy with this solution. And I agree that it is better to split > > > log_buf_len_align() in a separate patch as you suggested in the other > > > mail. > > > > OK just to be on safe side I noticed memblock_virt_alloc() and > > memblock_virt_alloc_nopanic() allow passing an explicit alignment > > requirement, traced back the orignal code with no good reason to > > not use the LOG_ALIGN, so I think using that would be the safest > > thing to do. Will roll that into the first patch, curious if the > > folks that ran into the alignment issues on ARM could reproduce > > an align barf without this on some situations, perhaps not because > > of the power of 2 thing and since the min value for LOG_BUF_SHIFT > > is 12. > > Great catch. It makes sense to me. There is no reason to have aligned > stores when the buffer itself is not properly aligned. > > IMHO, it would make sense to have separate patch for this change. It might be > candidate for stable releases.
OK thanks for the review and all your help, I'll split that up into another patch, so it'll be 3 total. 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/