From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [PATCH] panic.c: export panic_on_oops From: David Woodhouse To: Ingo Molnar In-Reply-To: <20091012120951.GA16799@elte.hu> References: <1255241458-11665-1-git-send-email-dedekind1@gmail.com> <20091012111545.GB8857@elte.hu> <1255346731.9659.31.camel@localhost> <20091012113758.GB11035@elte.hu> <20091012140149.6789efab@marrow.netinsight.se> <20091012120951.GA16799@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:15:48 +0100 Message-Id: <1255349748.10605.13.camel@macbook.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Artem Bityutskiy , LKML , "Koskinen Aaro \(Nokia-D/Helsinki\)" , linux-mtd , Simon Kagstrom , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, 2009-10-12 at 14:09 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > Also, would it be possible to just simplify the thing and not do any > buffering at all? Extra buffering complexity in a console driver is only > asking for trouble. Or is flash storage write cycles optimization that > important in this case? That and the fact that on NAND flash you have to write full pages at a time -- that's 512 bytes, 2KiB or 4KiB depending on the type of chip. So we really do want to buffer it where we can. We don't want to write a 2KiB page for every line of printk output. -- David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre David.Woodhouse@intel.com Intel Corporation