[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180209104729.s5bhatnex3pntwt2@pathway.suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2018 11:47:29 +0100
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] printk: Relocate wake_klogd check close to the end of
console_unlock()
On Fri 2018-02-09 12:28:30, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (02/08/18 17:48), Petr Mladek wrote:
> > Note that we need Tejun's patch for-4.16 because it fixes a potential
> > race introduced by the console waiter logic.
>
> I understand it. I think I put my Reviewed-by on v1, maybe not...
> Here it is
>
> Reviewed-by: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
You actually provided Reviewed-by for v1. But I was not sure if
you would agree with the updated commit log and pushing this for-4.16.
OK, I am going to push v2 into for-4.16-rc3 branch. I will push it
to Linus once I am back from vacation. If nobody is against it.
> But can we may be come up with a more general solution? Like the one
> that we discussed above. I've seen some user space klogd lost messages
> reports recently. I assume it was partly caused by that very late
> wakeup that we have.
Sure. A better solution makes sense. I am just not 100% sure about
the exact variant. But it is more or less about details that we
need to settle on.
Best Regards,
Petr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists