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