[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170816065545.GA522@jagdpanzerIV.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:55:45 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Eric Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Andreas Mohr <andi@...as.de>,
Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCHv5 07/13] printk: register syscore notifier
On (08/15/17 13:56), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
[..]
> > +static int printk_syscore_suspend(void)
> > +{
> > + printk_emergency_begin();
> > + return 0;
> > +}
>
> Somebody looking at suspend/resume code paths only will be wondering why
> you need this, because we should be in the emergency mode already when
> it is called.
>
> It would be good to add a comment about the kexec context here.
ok, will add.
> > +static void printk_syscore_resume(void)
> > +{
> > + printk_emergency_end();
> > +}
>
> This will turn the emergency mode off during resume before the notifier
> added by the previous patch AFAICS. Is this intentional?
emergency modes can nest. so it's OK to have
printk_emergency_begin() +1 // on
printk_emergency_begin() +1
printk_emergency_end() -1
printk_emergency_end() -1 // off
or did I misunderstand your question?
-ss
Powered by blists - more mailing lists