[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190114143707.amwh6ykixryxpesn@pathway.suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 15:37:07 +0100
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sysrq: Restore original console_loglevel when sysrq
disabled
On Mon 2019-01-14 14:36:42, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> On (01/11/19 16:32), Petr Mladek wrote:
> > The same problem is with the sysrq header line. It uses the trick
> > with console_loglevel by intention. We want to show it but
> > it is not really an error message
>
> May be.
>
> I usually see it as an "error".
>
>
> My case:
> systemd sets sysrq on every boot to /lib/sysctl.d/50-default.conf
> kernel.sysrq value, which I usually set to 1. But after every systemd
> package update I have to edit 50-default.conf again, because somebody
> concluded that overwriting /lib/sysctl.d/50-default.conf during package
> update was the right thing to do. So, occasionally, when I need to do
> sysrq all I get is "This sysrq operation is disabled" error. So I swear
> a lot, reboot the box, change the sysrq mask and try to reproduce the
> problem. /* I became familiar with "sysrq_always_enabled=1" just
> recently. */
>
> "This sysrq operation is disabled" is always bad news and is always not
> what I want to see.
It is a matter of taste and I do not have strong opinion about it.
Anyway, changing the string should be a separate patch.
Best Regards,
Petr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists