Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>
> > The following options come to mind:
> > 1. Keep the msg buffer, but make it smaller. Around 120 bytes would
> > probably be
> > big enough for the vast majority of messages. (printk() uses a 1024-byte
> > buffer,
> > but it's static -- see #2.)
> >
> > 2. Use a big, static buffer, protected by a spinlock. printk() does this.
> >
> > 3. Do the whole thing in a macro, as in previous proposals. The size of
> > the macro
> > expansion could be reduced somewhat by doing the encode-prefix step in a
> > function --
> > something like:
[more on #3 snipped]
>
> Is there some way to tack copy and prepend what you want onto the format
> string, and add additional arguments to the call to printk? That way you
> wouldn't need space for the potentially large resulting string, but only
> enough room for the expanded format string.
Interesting idea. I pondered this for a while. But even if you postulate
a varargs version of printk (which doesn't exist), it's not really
feasible to do this in a function. There's no way for a function to
prepend args to a va_list. That means you'd have to encode the text of
the prefix as part of the format string, and that would require you to
allocate room for prefix+format, which is still a lot of stack. Also,
the fact that the interface name itself may contain "%d" or some such
makes it even messier.
Greg K-H thinks #2 is a reasonable solution (you're about to serialize on
printk's
lock anyway), so I'll go with that.
Thanks.
Jim
|
