> On 05-Mar-2024, at 4:13 AM, Steven Rostedt wrote:
>
> From: "Steven Rostedt (Google)"
>
> This reverts 60be76eeabb3d ("tracing: Add size check when printing
> trace_marker output"). The only reason the precision check was added
> was because of a bug that miscalculated the write size of
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 18:55:00 -0500
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 18:23:41 -0500
> Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>
> > It appears to currently be limited by
> >
> > #define TRACE_SEQ_BUFFER_SIZE (PAGE_SIZE * 2 - \
> > (sizeof(struct seq_buf) + sizeof(size_t) + sizeof(int)))
>
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 18:23:41 -0500
Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> It appears to currently be limited by
>
> #define TRACE_SEQ_BUFFER_SIZE (PAGE_SIZE * 2 - \
> (sizeof(struct seq_buf) + sizeof(size_t) + sizeof(int)))
>
> checked within tracing_mark_write().
Yeah, I can hard code this to
On 2024-03-04 17:43, Steven Rostedt wrote:
From: "Steven Rostedt (Google)"
This reverts 60be76eeabb3d ("tracing: Add size check when printing
trace_marker output"). The only reason the precision check was added
was because of a bug that miscalculated the write size of the string into
the ring
From: "Steven Rostedt (Google)"
This reverts 60be76eeabb3d ("tracing: Add size check when printing
trace_marker output"). The only reason the precision check was added
was because of a bug that miscalculated the write size of the string into
the ring buffer and it truncated it removing the
5 matches
Mail list logo