On 13.03.2025 18:03, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 13/03/2025 4:37 pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 13.03.2025 17:28, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> On 13/03/2025 2:19 pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 13.03.2025 14:58, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>>>> On 13/03/2025 1:38 pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> I'm tempted to ack this on the basis that it is an improvement, but a /*
>>>>> TODO this is all mad, please fix */ wouldn't go amiss either.
>>>> I understand you like adding such comments; I, however, at least
>>>> sometimes (e.g.) don't. Especially without at least outlining what
>>>> would need doing. Just saying "this is all mad" doesn't really help
>>>> very much.
>>> I was being somewhat flippant.  But a /* TODO, try and make this a
>>> presmp_initcall() to improve alloc_trace_bufs() */ would be fine.
>> Okay, added (to the existing comment).
> 
> RISC-V and PPC were both green in the pipeline, so they seem happy.

As alluded to, not surprising at all, as the tests surely don't supply
a "tbuf_size=" command line option. Without which init_trace_bufs() does
close to nothing. Still - thanks for double checking. May I imply an ack
from this (formally I'll need a separate Arm one then still anyway)?

Jan

Reply via email to