On 14/03/2025 6:49 am, Jan Beulich wrote: > 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)?
Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>
