Re: [patch] x86: reduce srat verbosity in the kernel log

[Mike Travis <travis@sgi.com>]

Andi Kleen wrote:
>> MAX_LOCAL_APIC was definitely an arbitrary choice here and has very little 
>> relevance.  scnlistprintf will protect against overflow, but we still need 
>> to decide upon a constant that will emit the most information possible 
>> while not overly polluting the printk and saving on bss, as you mentioned.  
>> I suspect we could agree on a value as little as 128 and it would work for 
>> the overwhelming majority (all?) of users.
> 
> For now at least seems reasonable to limit to 128 or so yes (and go
> back to the stack). if we ever have sparse apic ids for nodes 
> then that might change; but in this case could still just do
> a acpidump or teach the printer to be more clever and support
> strides.
> 
> It would be just good to have some indication in the output
> if there was a overflow.
> 
> -Andi
> 

I don't understand the importance of this when the memory is given back
after the system starts up anyway...?

Thanks,
Mike