On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 10:34:15 -0500 Steven Rostedt <rost...@goodmis.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 09:11:40 -0500 > Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com> wrote: > > > On 2023-12-09 17:10, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > [...] > > > <...>-852 [001] ..... 121.550551: > > > tracing_mark_write[LINE TOO BIG] > > > <...>-852 [001] ..... 121.550581: tracing_mark_write: > > > 78901234 > > > > Failing to print an entire message because it does not fit in the > > buffer size is rather inconvenient. > > Yes I agree, and luckily it hasn't been called out as an issue. Note, I hit > this because I extended the trace_marker buffer before increasing the > trace_seq size. Otherwise, the trace_marker just breaks it up. This can now > only be triggered by internal changes. Rather than the broken output, I would perfer this output. > > > > > It would be better to print the partial line, and end the line with > > a <TRUNCATED LINE> tag. But how long the partial line length is good enough? I think that big (and long) user marker maybe not for human, so we don't need to care about readability. I think current one is one of better solutions. So I'll give my Reviewed-by. :) Reviewed-by: Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhira...@kernel.org> Thank you, > > Agreed, but I don't have time to do that (I already spent way too much time > on this than I had allocated). I decided to just do what the trace_pipe > currently does, and leave "print partial line" to another day when I can > allocate time on this. > > Hmm, this could be added to the "TODO" list that was talked about in > ksummit-discuss. > > -- Steve > -- Masami Hiramatsu (Google) <mhira...@kernel.org>
