[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190226153814.cem5lxr7sla2ihb5@pathway.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 16:38:14 +0100
From: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
To: John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Daniel Wang <wonderfly@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
Peter Feiner <pfeiner@...gle.com>,
linux-serial@...r.kernel.org,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 16/25] printk: implement CON_PRINTBUFFER
On Tue 2019-02-12 15:29:54, John Ogness wrote:
> If the CON_PRINTBUFFER flag is not set, do not replay the history
> for that console.
This patch fixes a regression caused by previous patches.
We need to do it a way that does not cause the regression
and do not break bisection.
> diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> index 6c875abd7b17..b97d4195b09a 100644
> --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
> +++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> @@ -1596,8 +1592,12 @@ static void call_console_drivers(u64 seq, const char *ext_text, size_t ext_len,
> if (!(con->flags & CON_ENABLED))
> continue;
> if (!con->wrote_history) {
> - printk_write_history(con, seq);
> - continue;
> + if (con->flags & CON_PRINTBUFFER) {
> + printk_write_history(con, seq);
> + continue;
> + }
> + con->wrote_history = 1;
I have just got an idea that we do not need a new flag.
We could clear CON_PRINTBUFFER bit instead.
Best Regards,
Petr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists