From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263933AbTDHEkj (for ); Tue, 8 Apr 2003 00:40:39 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263935AbTDHEkj (for ); Tue, 8 Apr 2003 00:40:39 -0400 Received: from air-2.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:31703 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263933AbTDHEki (for ); Tue, 8 Apr 2003 00:40:38 -0400 Message-ID: <32918.4.64.197.106.1049777532.squirrel@webmail.osdl.org> Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 21:52:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Wanted: a limit on kernel log buffer size From: "Randy.Dunlap" To: <76306.1226@compuserve.com> In-Reply-To: <200304080045_MC3-1-3378-3CDB@compuserve.com> References: <200304080045_MC3-1-3378-3CDB@compuserve.com> X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal Cc: , , X-Mailer: SquirrelMail (version 1.2.11 [cvs]) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Randy Dunlap wrote: > > >>Here's a [modified] patch that limits kernel log buffer size >>to 1 MB max and 4 KB min. > > > That's even better. > > Maybe the kernel config system could just use multi-choice, > something like this? > > ( ) 8K > ( ) 16K > ( ) 32K > ( ) 64K > ( ) 128K > ( ) 256K > > A subset of your larger range should be enough, and this > would be less prone to user error. Yes, that could be done. In fact, the current LOG BUFFER size selection started out that way IIRC, but some people said things like, "why have limits" and "make it more general," so I did, I guess now we have an answer to "why have limits." :( If more people keep having problems with it, we should change it. ~Randy