Re: Bloatwatch 2.6.28-rc1: last_sysfs_file

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Matt Mackall
Date: Monday, October 27, 2008 - 9:11 am

On Sat, 2008-10-25 at 06:38 -0400, Chris Snook wrote: 

I'm explicitly not using a magic number because the relevant magic
number is absurdly large. It is in fact 4 times larger than printk can
print. And its 40 times larger than any path we are liable to encounter.
Inventing a new use-once #define meaning "good enough for debugging
99.99% of sysfs bugs" one line up is not an improvement here.

And why on earth would I modify anything in printk?

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.

--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Bloatwatch 2.6.28-rc1: last_sysfs_file, Matt Mackall, (Fri Oct 24, 1:51 pm)
Re: Bloatwatch 2.6.28-rc1: last_sysfs_file, Matt Mackall, (Fri Oct 24, 2:15 pm)
Re: Bloatwatch 2.6.28-rc1: last_sysfs_file, Chris Snook, (Sat Oct 25, 3:38 am)
Re: Bloatwatch 2.6.28-rc1: last_sysfs_file, Matt Mackall, (Mon Oct 27, 9:11 am)
Re: Bloatwatch 2.6.28-rc1: last_sysfs_file, Chris Snook, (Mon Oct 27, 9:50 am)
Re: Bloatwatch 2.6.28-rc1: last_sysfs_file, Matt Mackall, (Mon Oct 27, 10:46 am)
Re: Bloatwatch 2.6.28-rc1: last_sysfs_file, Chris Snook, (Mon Oct 27, 11:16 am)